Development Commission · Wednesday, March 2, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Liaison Lucy Sloman, Land About Development Manager Created in 1983, this commission reviews all Email Lucy Sloman land use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an advisory Regular Members board to the City Council on land use actions 2022 – Michael Brennan requiring council approval (Level 5 review). 2022 – Richard Sanford 2022 – Richard Sowa The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2023 – Patty Dillon Development Commission members and City 2023 – Brooke Shore Council members from discussing the merit of 2024 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications 2024 – Arthur Schulte outside of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, however, may discuss any issue with Alternate Members the City's Development Services

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 2, 2022

packet pp.7–14

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 2, 2022

3. PUBLIC HEARING

Site Development Permit, Master Site Plan, Five Administrative Adjustments of Standards, (D) Application Nos.: PRJ19-00008, SDP20- AAS21-00001, AAS21-00002 (Updated Parcel Nos.: 1624069031, 1624069001

Cristina Haworth, Planning Consultant Todd Sawin, AHBL · packet pp.15–191

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT NO. PRJ19-00008 FILE NOS. SDP20-00001, MSP20-00001, AAS20-00012, AAS21-00001, AAS21-00002, AAS21-00005, & AAS20- 00006 Issue Date: February 16, 2022

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.193

▶ Watch from 1:31:09 Open packet at p.193 ↗

Staff report:

2022 Development Commission Schedule (tentative) (updated 2/17/2022)

4111 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ march 2nd meeting of the issaquah

0:01 ↗ development commission to order it is 7

0:04 ↗ 10.

0:05 ↗ welcome due to the virtual format of

0:06 ↗ tonight's meeting and the large number

0:09 ↗ of community members that would like to

0:10 ↗ comment i'd like to start by providing

0:12 ↗ some guidelines to help the meeting run

0:13 ↗ more efficiently

0:15 ↗ and we have participants attending both

0:17 ↗ by computer and other other uh who may

0:19 ↗ be attending by phone

0:22 ↗ for all meeting attendees please speak

0:24 ↗ clearly and pause frequently state your

0:27 ↗ name each time before speaking mute your

0:30 ↗ microphone when you're not speaking to

0:32 ↗ eliminate the background noise and if

0:35 ↗ you're having technical issues you can

0:36 ↗ try joining a meeting using a different

0:38 ↗ device such as a smartphone or a tablet

0:41 ↗ or you can use the call-in information

0:44 ↗ uh in the meeting invite to call in the

0:46 ↗ meeting

0:47 ↗ this evening an overview um for tonight

0:50 ↗ tonight's meeting we do have one agenda

0:52 ↗ item it is a public hearing for the

0:54 ↗ providence heights school project and

0:56 ↗ this is a quasi-judicial matter

1:00 ↗ so we want to take attendance so lucy if

1:01 ↗ you would please call the rolling

1:03 ↗ commissioners please unmute and say here

1:05 ↗ when your name is called lucy

1:14 ↗ lucy you're muted

1:18 ↗ ah never never adjust to this well thank

1:20 ↗ you chair brennan

1:22 ↗ here

1:24 ↗ commissioner sanford

1:26 ↗ here

1:27 ↗ commissioner soa

1:29 ↗ here

1:31 ↗ commissioner dylan

1:33 ↗ here

1:34 ↗ commissioner shore

1:36 ↗ here

1:38 ↗ commissioner price is absent

1:41 ↗ uh commissioner ikeda

1:44 ↗ here

1:46 ↗ and commissioner morgan

1:48 ↗ here

1:52 ↗ thank you lucy i'd like to note that

1:54 ↗ both alternative commissioners

1:56 ↗ commissioner morgan and acada are

1:58 ↗ serving as regular commissioners uh

2:01 ↗ commission members this evening due to

2:02 ↗ the resignation of one regular

2:04 ↗ commissioner and the recusal of another

2:07 ↗ regular commissioner we'll discuss the

2:09 ↗ recusal during the appearance of

2:10 ↗ fairness disclosures

2:12 ↗ so the first

2:14 ↗ piece of business that we need to

2:16 ↗ address is the meeting minutes from our

2:18 ↗ february 2nd development commission

2:20 ↗ meeting i will need to approve those

2:22 ↗ this evening so hopefully everybody's

2:24 ↗ had an opportunity to review those are

2:26 ↗ there any corrections to the february

2:29 ↗ 2nd

2:30 ↗ 2022 meeting minutes that were provided

2:32 ↗ in the agenda packet

2:37 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved by

2:40 ↗ consent

2:41 ↗ consensus thank you

2:44 ↗ so there is a also an opportunity at our

2:47 ↗ commission meetings for

2:48 ↗ the general public

2:51 ↗ to comment

2:52 ↗ um on topics that are not on the agenda

2:55 ↗ uh the commission rules provide for that

2:57 ↗ opportunity so we would like to open

2:58 ↗ open the floor for any members of the

3:00 ↗ public that would like to comment on

3:02 ↗ topics that are not before the

3:03 ↗ commission at tonight's public hearing

3:06 ↗ so again if you do want to

3:08 ↗ comment during the public hearing that

3:11 ↗ opportunity will come a little bit later

3:12 ↗ in the meeting but if you want to make a

3:14 ↗ comment on something that's not on

3:15 ↗ tonight's agenda this is your

3:17 ↗ opportunity so if you're on a phone

3:20 ↗ uh and not a computer please please

3:22 ↗ press three on your phone

3:24 ↗ or if you are on a computer raise your

3:26 ↗ virtual hand

3:27 ↗ lucy is there anyone that would like to

3:29 ↗ speak

3:34 ↗ i do not see anyone

3:37 ↗ [Music]

3:39 ↗ right

3:40 ↗ so um moving on to the uh the main

3:44 ↗ agenda for this evening it is the public

3:46 ↗ hearing on the providence heights

3:48 ↗ project

3:49 ↗ the purpose of the tonight's public

3:51 ↗ hearing is for the commission to review

3:53 ↗ and make recommendations and findings of

3:56 ↗ fact to be forwarded to the city council

3:58 ↗ on the master site plan

4:00 ↗ msp20001

4:03 ↗ site development permit s d p 20 0

4:08 ↗ 0001 and 5 administrative adjustments of

4:11 ↗ standards those include aas20-0013

4:17 ↗ aas 21-001

4:22 ↗ aas 21-0002

4:27 ↗ aas21-0005

4:31 ↗ and aas 21-0006

4:36 ↗ for the providence heights project plea

4:39 ↗ the proposal is for the construction of

4:40 ↗ a new consolidated high school and

4:43 ↗ elementary school campus that will serve

4:45 ↗ approximately 2 000 students and include

4:48 ↗ sports stadiums with lighting tennis

4:50 ↗ courts with lighting

4:52 ↗ unless sports fields

4:55 ↗ um

4:56 ↗ uh

4:57 ↗ outdoor learning spaces structured and

4:59 ↗ surface parking utility upgrades new

5:02 ↗ pedestrian and vehicle facilities and

5:04 ↗ related improvements the site is

5:06 ↗ approximately 40 acres and it's near the

5:09 ↗ intersection of 228th avenue southeast

5:12 ↗ and the providence height loop

5:14 ↗ so just for um

5:16 ↗ the public the the order that the

5:19 ↗ hearing proceeds in these are the major

5:21 ↗ elements of the of a public hearing

5:23 ↗ we'll go through an appearance of

5:24 ↗ fairness disclosures for the commission

5:27 ↗ we will open the public hearing there is

5:29 ↗ a staff presentation on the project an

5:33 ↗ applicant is also given an opportunity

5:35 ↗ to make a presentation we would then

5:38 ↗ accept public comment so we'll open for

5:40 ↗ public comment

5:42 ↗ then followed by an opportunity for

5:44 ↗ rebuttal by the applicant and the

5:46 ↗ staff

5:48 ↗ and then we would close the public

5:49 ↗ hearing

5:51 ↗ following the closure of the public

5:52 ↗ hearing the commission then would

5:54 ↗ deliberate on the information that we

5:55 ↗ have received to date and in the public

5:58 ↗ hearing

5:59 ↗ the commission would then take action

6:01 ↗ and then we would conclude the agenda

6:03 ↗ item on the quasi-judicial permit again

6:06 ↗ it would be

6:07 ↗ on a recommendation that would be

6:08 ↗ forwarded to the city council

6:11 ↗ we do not expect

6:13 ↗ we will conclude the public comments

6:15 ↗ this evening we have a number of people

6:17 ↗ who are pre-registered to speak and will

6:19 ↗ continue to take public comment tomorrow

6:21 ↗ evening on march 3rd

6:23 ↗ with the remainder of the public hearing

6:25 ↗ agenda to be continued uh scheduled for

6:28 ↗ march 16.

6:29 ↗ so i want to move on to the the next

6:32 ↗ piece here which is the appearance of

6:34 ↗ fairness disclosures

6:36 ↗ lucy please proceed with questioning the

6:37 ↗ commissioners about appearance of

6:39 ↗ fairness disclosures

6:51 ↗ can you see my screen

6:53 ↗ yes

6:54 ↗ great thank you

6:57 ↗ so um for a quasi-judicial matter uh it

7:00 ↗ requires that our proceedings be

7:03 ↗ to be fair in both fact and appearance

7:06 ↗ similar to a courtroom setting

7:09 ↗ ex parte contacts are prohibited those

7:12 ↗ are communications outside of the

7:13 ↗ hearing between a decision maker and an

7:16 ↗ opponent or proponent of the matter at

7:18 ↗ hand

7:19 ↗ if such communications have occurred

7:21 ↗ record of the substance of the

7:23 ↗ communication must be placed on the

7:25 ↗ record to allow other interested parties

7:28 ↗ the right to rebut the substance of the

7:30 ↗ communication

7:31 ↗ the test would be if a disinterested

7:33 ↗ person having been apprised of the

7:36 ↗ totality of a decision maker's personal

7:39 ↗ interest in a matter being acted upon

7:42 ↗ would be

7:43 ↗ reasonably justified in thinking that

7:45 ↗ partiality may exist

7:47 ↗ decision makers who have a personal

7:49 ↗ interest pre-judgment of issues or

7:52 ↗ partiality are disqualified from the

7:54 ↗ proceedings

7:56 ↗ commissioners please read the questions

8:00 ↗ on this slide

8:02 ↗ and then i will take a roll call of your

8:04 ↗ answers

8:22 ↗ maybe raise your hand once you've

8:25 ↗ finished reading just so i have a sense

8:27 ↗ okay

8:28 ↗ um commissioner brennan

8:31 ↗ no

8:33 ↗ commissioner sanford

8:35 ↗ no wishes

8:37 ↗ commissioner soha

8:39 ↗ no

8:40 ↗ commissioner dylan

8:43 ↗ my

8:44 ↗ employer my company does have a business

8:47 ↗ relationship with the applicant's

8:49 ↗ engineer

8:51 ↗ we have no involvement in this project

8:53 ↗ nor have i had any connection or

8:56 ↗ previous knowledge of it so i don't

8:57 ↗ believe it would affect my ability to

8:59 ↗ fairly assess the

9:02 ↗ application

9:04 ↗ and it would be no to all the other

9:06 ↗ questions correct

9:08 ↗ commissioner shaw

9:11 ↗ no to all questions

9:14 ↗ commissioner price is absent

9:16 ↗ uh commissioner ikeda

9:20 ↗ no to all questions and commissioner

9:22 ↗ morgan

9:24 ↗ uh i know to all except for the third my

9:28 ↗ in-laws live within providence point but

9:30 ↗ we've not discussed the project and

9:33 ↗ i do not believe it would

9:35 ↗ influence my decision

9:37 ↗ um

9:38 ↗ thank you thank you commissioners i just

9:40 ↗ want to

9:42 ↗ mention at this time that we received a

9:44 ↗ letter from commissioner

9:46 ↗ kevin price recusing himself from the

9:48 ↗ proceedings due to an appearance of

9:50 ↗ fairness conflict

9:52 ↗ and commissioner price is also

9:54 ↗ unavailable tonight and tomorrow night

9:58 ↗ i will now proceed to the next slide

10:03 ↗ please read this and then i will

10:07 ↗ ask

10:07 ↗ each of you to respond

10:13 ↗ chair brennan

10:15 ↗ yes

10:17 ↗ chair sanford uh commissioner sanford

10:20 ↗ yes

10:21 ↗ commissioner soha yes

10:24 ↗ commissioner dylan

10:26 ↗ yes

10:27 ↗ commissioner shaw

10:29 ↗ yes

10:31 ↗ commissioner price

10:32 ↗ absent

10:33 ↗ uh commissioner ikeda

10:36 ↗ yes

10:37 ↗ and commissioner morgan

10:39 ↗ yes

10:43 ↗ um as the final component of the

10:45 ↗ appearance of fairness disclosures

10:48 ↗ i would like to

10:51 ↗ ask if any audience members wish to

10:54 ↗ challenge the participation of any

10:56 ↗ commissioner based on appearance of

10:58 ↗ fairness doctrine if you have an

11:00 ↗ objection raise your virtual hand or

11:03 ↗ type objection into the chat window

11:06 ↗ and when called upon please be prepared

11:08 ↗ to state the name of the member and the

11:10 ↗ reason or reasons why you believe they

11:13 ↗ should be disqualified from this matter

11:18 ↗ and lucy i would like to add for anyone

11:20 ↗ on the phone you can raise your virtual

11:22 ↗ hand by pressing star three

11:24 ↗ thank you and um

11:26 ↗ tisha you'll need to

11:28 ↗ be watching because i don't have access

11:30 ↗ to that screen at this time

11:37 ↗ i'm monitoring the attendees

11:40 ↗ and the chat at this time i don't see

11:43 ↗ any hands raised

11:44 ↗ nor any messages

11:49 ↗ great thank you

11:51 ↗ um so there

11:52 ↗ is no objection to the participation of

11:54 ↗ any of the commissioners present tonight

11:57 ↗ however i ask the commission to vote on

11:59 ↗ excusing commissioner price from these

12:02 ↗ proceedings while the commission is

12:03 ↗ considering the providence heights

12:05 ↗ permits so the question before the

12:07 ↗ commission is should commissioner price

12:09 ↗ may be used from voting on the

12:11 ↗ providence height proceeding

12:13 ↗ [Music]

12:15 ↗ so

12:15 ↗ what we would need to do is um

12:19 ↗ essentially take a roll call vote

12:22 ↗ again on the question of

12:24 ↗ should commissioner price be excused

12:27 ↗ from voting on the providence height

12:30 ↗ proceedings tonight's proceedings and

12:32 ↗ those to come

12:33 ↗ following tonight on this project

12:35 ↗ so

12:36 ↗ a roll call lucy and

12:39 ↗ if you are agreeable to excusing

12:41 ↗ commissioner price please say

12:43 ↗ yes uh if you are not please say

12:47 ↗ no

12:49 ↗ chair brennan

12:50 ↗ yes commissioner sanford

12:54 ↗ yes

12:55 ↗ commissioner soha yes

12:58 ↗ commissioner dylan

13:00 ↗ yes

13:01 ↗ commissioner shore

13:03 ↗ yes

13:04 ↗ commissioner akeda

13:07 ↗ yes

13:08 ↗ commissioner morgan

13:10 ↗ yes

13:16 ↗ thank you so commissioner price is

13:20 ↗ excused from these proceedings

13:23 ↗ so now i want to open the public hearing

13:26 ↗ so the public hearing for providence

13:27 ↗ heights project msp20-0001

13:33 ↗ sdp 20-0001

13:38 ↗ aas

13:40 ↗ 20-0-0-1-2

13:44 ↗ aas

13:47 ↗ zero 21-000 zero one

13:49 ↗ aas21-0002

13:53 ↗ aas21-0005

13:57 ↗ aas 21-000

14:03 ↗ is now open that's a lot of numbers

14:07 ↗ so we move now to the staff presentation

14:10 ↗ and that presentation will be provided

14:12 ↗ by consulting planner

14:14 ↗ uh christina hayworth commissioners

14:17 ↗ please hold your questions until ms

14:19 ↗ hayworth has completed her presentation

14:22 ↗ uh and then we can ask any questions

14:24 ↗ regarding that presentation

14:26 ↗ uh following um miss hayward so miss

14:30 ↗ hayward

14:31 ↗ thank you commissioner brennan

14:33 ↗ uh bear with me while i get the

14:35 ↗ slideshow launched and shared

14:48 ↗ okay can everyone see this okay

14:52 ↗ yes

14:53 ↗ great thank you so much

14:55 ↗ uh so good evening and thank you to all

14:58 ↗ who are joining us tonight my name is

15:00 ↗ christina hayworth i'm a consulting

15:02 ↗ planner working with the city of

15:04 ↗ issaquah to review

15:05 ↗ this project

15:07 ↗ as commissioner brennan stated this is

15:09 ↗ the staff presentation for issaquah

15:11 ↗ school district's providence heights

15:13 ↗ proposal

15:14 ↗ which is the construction of a new

15:16 ↗ consolidated high school and elementary

15:18 ↗ school campus

15:21 ↗ here's uh

15:23 ↗ maybe

15:26 ↗ okay here we go here's the agenda for

15:29 ↗ the rest of tonight's meetings so i'll

15:31 ↗ go over the project talk about some

15:34 ↗ key topics of interest that we've heard

15:36 ↗ about and then review the permit process

15:39 ↗ and next steps

15:41 ↗ then we'll have an opportunity for q a

15:44 ↗ the applicant presentation more q a and

15:47 ↗ then public testimony

15:50 ↗ so with that

15:51 ↗ let's get started

15:53 ↗ i do have a correction to make to this

15:56 ↗ staff report that i noticed as i was

15:58 ↗ preparing this presentation

16:00 ↗ uh the section summary which is a gray

16:02 ↗ box on page 74

16:04 ↗ should read that the proposal complies

16:07 ↗ with the minimum tree retention

16:08 ↗ requirement this is a sentence in the

16:10 ↗ second paragraph of that

16:12 ↗ box and this is supported by the

16:14 ↗ analysis that follows the section

16:16 ↗ summary

16:17 ↗ it was just an oversight when

16:19 ↗ finishing the last edits on the staff

16:22 ↗ report

16:24 ↗ we also have several new attachments to

16:26 ↗ add into the record as i'm sure you all

16:29 ↗ have seen

16:31 ↗ attachment 102 will be all of the public

16:34 ↗ comments received between

16:36 ↗ february 16th of this year and today at

16:40 ↗ 5 00 pm

16:42 ↗ these have been forwarded to the

16:44 ↗ development commission upon receipt in

16:46 ↗ advance of this meeting but they'll be

16:47 ↗ officially packaged as an attachment

16:50 ↗ we do expect to receive additional

16:52 ↗ comments in fact i have received

16:54 ↗ additional comments since 5 pm and those

16:56 ↗ will be bundled up and entered into the

16:58 ↗ record

16:59 ↗ tomorrow

17:02 ↗ attachment number 103 is a sepa addendum

17:07 ↗ this was prepared by the issaquah school

17:09 ↗ district uh dated february 25th 2022 and

17:13 ↗ it analyzes project phasing

17:18 ↗ um and then attachments 104 and 105 are

17:22 ↗ the slide decks that you are viewing

17:24 ↗ tonight so 104 is the staff presentation

17:27 ↗ 105 is the applicant presentation

17:31 ↗ all right

17:33 ↗ let's get started with some context

17:36 ↗ the project site is shown here in red

17:39 ↗ it's located in the northern part of the

17:41 ↗ city of issaquah along the eastern edge

17:43 ↗ of the municipal boundary shared with

17:44 ↗ the city of sammamish

17:48 ↗ access is from

17:50 ↗ 228th avenue southeast presently at two

17:54 ↗ driveways that are identified here with

17:56 ↗ the red outlined yellow dots on the east

17:59 ↗ east property line

18:01 ↗ these lead to an internal access roadway

18:03 ↗ called providence heights loop which is

18:05 ↗ the white dashed line around the center

18:08 ↗ of the property

18:10 ↗ the property line is shared with

18:12 ↗ bellwood to the north i'm not sure if

18:15 ↗ you can see my cursor

18:18 ↗ but it's bellwood is up here on the very

18:20 ↗ northern property line

18:22 ↗ and then the property line is shared

18:25 ↗ with providence point to the northwest

18:28 ↗ southwest southeast and south

18:31 ↗ 228th avenue southeast

18:33 ↗ uh right-of-way forms the eastern

18:35 ↗ property boundary

18:38 ↗ the site was formerly developed as the

18:40 ↗ providence heights college

18:42 ↗ most improvements have since been

18:44 ↗ demolished

18:45 ↗ but what remains is this central

18:47 ↗ clearing still shown here on this ariel

18:51 ↗ some pavement

18:53 ↗ kind of scattered around the property

18:56 ↗ and a water tower that's down in the

18:59 ↗ southern edge of the property

19:02 ↗ topography is rolling and fairly

19:04 ↗ variable across the site with slopes

19:06 ↗ ranging from flat to greater than 50

19:10 ↗ in some areas

19:12 ↗ uh and there are also two

19:14 ↗ isolated uh

19:16 ↗ low habitat quality wetlands on the

19:19 ↗ south of the property so wetlands

19:22 ↗ be

19:23 ↗ over here

19:24 ↗ uh

19:25 ↗ close close to

19:27 ↗ the providence heights loop roadway and

19:29 ↗ then wetland c

19:31 ↗ which is sort of near the water tower

19:36 ↗ okay

19:39 ↗ issaquah school district which i'll

19:41 ↗ refer to as isd or the applicant going

19:44 ↗ forward

19:45 ↗ is proposing to redevelop this site with

19:48 ↗ a new consolidated high school and

19:50 ↗ elementary school campus the high school

19:52 ↗ has a maximum capacity of

19:56 ↗ 1823 students and 150 faculty and staff

20:00 ↗ members

20:02 ↗ the high school is also supported by

20:05 ↗ accessory facilities including athletic

20:07 ↗ facilities and some other operational

20:09 ↗ features

20:10 ↗ shown on the plans

20:13 ↗ future phases of work are shown on the

20:15 ↗ plans for the high school and include a

20:17 ↗ 10 000 square foot addition on that's on

20:20 ↗ the west side of the building and four

20:22 ↗ portables which are already accounted

20:24 ↗ for in this

20:26 ↗ these capacity numbers

20:28 ↗ the elementary school has a maximum

20:30 ↗ capacity of 744 students and 75 faculty

20:35 ↗ and staff

20:36 ↗ it's going to be supported by accessory

20:38 ↗ playground facilities

20:40 ↗ and future phases shown on the plans

20:42 ↗ include

20:43 ↗ an additional four portable buildings

20:46 ↗ the proposal also includes

20:48 ↗ infrastructure like site circulation for

20:50 ↗ vehicles and pedestrians utilities uh

20:54 ↗ and operational features like the bus

20:56 ↗ driveway turn around loop and parking

20:58 ↗ areas and i'll go through all of the

20:59 ↗ major site elements with you now

21:02 ↗ if you'd like to follow along this

21:04 ↗ graphic is also shown in the staff

21:06 ↗ report on page 20.

21:10 ↗ so uh number one here towards the south

21:13 ↗ side of the property is the high school

21:16 ↗ building one a is the location of that

21:19 ↗ ten thousand square foot addition that i

21:21 ↗ mentioned and one b is the location of

21:24 ↗ the portables

21:26 ↗ uh that are one a and one b are those

21:28 ↗ future phases

21:31 ↗ two number two on the west side of the

21:34 ↗ property is the proposed elementary

21:36 ↗ school

21:37 ↗ the playground is to the south of the

21:39 ↗ school building

21:40 ↗ and to a identifies where those future

21:43 ↗ portables will go

21:46 ↗ number three on the graphic is the

21:49 ↗ stadium and track grandstands are on the

21:52 ↗ west side

21:54 ↗ they're kind of in the center of the

21:57 ↗ linear portion of track on the west side

22:02 ↗ they're facing eastward and the

22:04 ↗ scoreboard

22:06 ↗ which is a little difficult to see

22:08 ↗ is on the north side of the field facing

22:11 ↗ southward

22:13 ↗ item 4 on this

22:16 ↗ on this graphic is the ball field

22:18 ↗ complex that includes a softball field a

22:21 ↗ baseball field garden cages and a

22:23 ↗ central plaza

22:28 ↗ number five is the parking garage this

22:31 ↗ also has

22:33 ↗ four rooftop tennis courts on the

22:34 ↗ northern edge of the garage

22:38 ↗ number six is the high school bus pickup

22:42 ↗ drop-off and parking loop

22:44 ↗ the elementary school

22:46 ↗ bus pick-up and drop-off is actually

22:48 ↗ just along the east side of the

22:49 ↗ elementary school building and

22:50 ↗ playground uh buses would continue

22:53 ↗ through the high school loop to the

22:55 ↗ parking area

22:57 ↗ and still continue to park at number six

23:02 ↗ number seven which is shown

23:04 ↗ around the property in green is the

23:06 ↗ proposed vegetated buffer

23:09 ↗ so this is the area of the site that

23:11 ↗ will remain either undisturbed or

23:14 ↗ disturbed and replanted there will be

23:16 ↗ some pavement removal from this buffer

23:17 ↗ area the providence heights loop roadway

23:20 ↗ will be pulled out of the buffer and it

23:21 ↗ will be replanted

23:23 ↗ with additional vegetation

23:27 ↗ number eight on this graphic is the

23:30 ↗ primary access to the site this is a

23:32 ↗ signalized entry

23:34 ↗ and this is uh this is ingress and

23:37 ↗ egress for anyone visiting the site for

23:39 ↗ school for drop off or pick up

23:42 ↗ for whatever reason

23:44 ↗ uh and then finally number nine is an

23:47 ↗ emergency access so this is gated in two

23:51 ↗ places and will only be used for

23:55 ↗ emergency response uh so all traffic

23:58 ↗ will go

23:59 ↗ all general traffic will go through the

24:01 ↗ signalized entry that is number eight on

24:04 ↗ these plans

24:07 ↗ okay

24:09 ↗ you also already mentioned that there

24:11 ↗ are five requested administrative

24:14 ↗ adjustments of standards

24:16 ↗ these are seeking relief from certain

24:18 ↗ code requirements these are all

24:19 ↗ contemplated in the code and we'll go

24:22 ↗ through them one by one

24:26 ↗ the first request that isd has made is

24:29 ↗ to reduce the minimum required floor

24:32 ↗ area ratio

24:34 ↗ the minimum requirement in the code is

24:36 ↗ 0.75

24:38 ↗ and isd is requesting to reduce that to

24:41 ↗ 0.42

24:43 ↗ this is allowed in the imc

24:45 ↗ when reduction is less than 50

24:48 ↗ of that 0.75 minimum which in this case

24:52 ↗ uh it is

24:54 ↗ the practical outcome of this request is

24:56 ↗ that it results in less building mass on

24:59 ↗ the property by forcing them to to build

25:01 ↗ less

25:02 ↗ three-dimensional structure

25:05 ↗ so

25:06 ↗ for those who are not as familiar with

25:09 ↗ the far

25:10 ↗ that's

25:11 ↗ the floor area ratio that's the ratio

25:13 ↗ between the building square footage and

25:16 ↗ the developable site area regardless of

25:18 ↗ how the building is configured so you

25:20 ↗ can see

25:22 ↗ what a floor area ratio of one

25:25 ↗ looks like in a few different

25:27 ↗ configurations in this graphic

25:30 ↗ so you can see how building mass kind of

25:33 ↗ changes and compresses

25:35 ↗ but is still that same

25:37 ↗ far of one so

25:39 ↗ when when they're looking at a reduction

25:41 ↗ it would be

25:42 ↗ minimizing the building envelope

25:45 ↗ which is how it results in less building

25:47 ↗ mass on the property

25:50 ↗ the second request isd is making

25:53 ↗ is to reduce the minimum required tree

25:56 ↗ retention from 25 to 23 percent

26:01 ↗ this is allowed by

26:02 ↗ code which refers to the central

26:05 ↗ issaquad design and development

26:07 ↗ standards landscaping chapter

26:09 ↗ it's a little complicated let me know if

26:11 ↗ there are any questions on that

26:13 ↗ but there are certain criteria that have

26:14 ↗ to be met for

26:16 ↗ any kind of modification to true

26:18 ↗ retention to be approved

26:22 ↗ staff upon review of all of the

26:24 ↗ application materials

26:25 ↗ found that an aas is actually not

26:27 ↗ required and that's something that i

26:29 ↗ will dig into a little bit later in the

26:32 ↗ presentation

26:36 ↗ the third requested aas is an

26:39 ↗ authorization for shared parking

26:41 ↗ facilities

26:42 ↗ isd is asking to share parking on site

26:46 ↗ between its daytime school uses and its

26:49 ↗ after school event uses the idea here is

26:53 ↗ that these uses are generally mutually

26:55 ↗ exclusive so parking spaces can be

26:57 ↗ effectively shared because no no daytime

27:00 ↗ users will be parked

27:02 ↗ for after school uses unless they even

27:05 ↗ come back

27:08 ↗ this reduces the total number of on-site

27:11 ↗ parking stalls in surface and structured

27:13 ↗ parking

27:15 ↗ and requirements for daytime uses which

27:18 ↗ have the higher number of parking spaces

27:21 ↗ required

27:22 ↗ are met in the current plans as shown

27:26 ↗ this type of sharing is allowed by code

27:28 ↗ when it's supported with a parking study

27:31 ↗ which the applicant has submitted and it

27:33 ↗ is part of the record for this project

27:36 ↗ um a condition of approval does require

27:39 ↗ that isd provide a special event

27:41 ↗ management plan for overflow parking to

27:43 ↗ ensure that there is no spillover

27:46 ↗ parking in adjacent neighborhoods

27:50 ↗ and that would be reviewed and approved

27:52 ↗ by city staff before

27:54 ↗ the high school is allowed to begin

27:55 ↗ operating

28:00 ↗ the fourth aas request uh is to

28:05 ↗ um

28:06 ↗ for relief from continuous non-motorized

28:09 ↗ walkways in certain areas shown in red

28:12 ↗ on this site

28:14 ↗ plan this is also on page 57 of the

28:18 ↗ staff report if you're following along

28:19 ↗ with me

28:20 ↗ there's adequate non-motorized

28:22 ↗ accessibility along the major walking

28:24 ↗ routes and allowing relief in the areas

28:26 ↗ shown in red will help save trees by

28:28 ↗ reducing sight grading there's also

28:31 ↗ some advantage to not having students

28:34 ↗ walking in areas of the building that

28:36 ↗ are

28:37 ↗ a little less visually accessible like

28:41 ↗ they're on the eastern edge of the high

28:44 ↗ school itself

28:45 ↗ and so there will be there will be a

28:47 ↗ gate that will

28:49 ↗ prevent on the authorized access there

28:51 ↗ as well just to to make sure that folks

28:54 ↗ aren't walking back and forth there

28:59 ↗ the last administrative adjustment of

29:01 ↗ standards request is for reducing the

29:04 ↗ total number of non-motorized street

29:06 ↗ frontage connections from eight

29:09 ↗ to the three that are shown here

29:13 ↗ so this

29:15 ↗ is uh

29:17 ↗ not not expected to impact site

29:19 ↗ accessibility because non-motorized

29:21 ↗ traffic will arrive only from the north

29:23 ↗ or south along the frontage improvements

29:25 ↗ that are being constructed as part of

29:27 ↗ this project

29:30 ↗ and further it supports tree retention

29:32 ↗ by limiting grading and additional

29:34 ↗ pavement along the 228th avenue

29:36 ↗ southeast street frontage

29:43 ↗ aas's are typically decided using a

29:46 ↗ level 2 process which is a staff

29:49 ↗ or administrative decision

29:51 ↗ but upon review of the elevation

29:54 ↗ criteria in the municipal code 1804.100b

29:59 ↗ uh staff determined that these all meet

30:02 ↗ the requirements to uh to bump up

30:06 ↗ the aas request to the level 5 process

30:09 ↗ and consolidate

30:10 ↗ the aas's with the msp and sdp which

30:13 ↗ means that dc will also make a

30:15 ↗ recommendation on these requests as well

30:17 ↗ as the underlying land use permit

30:22 ↗ okay

30:26 ↗ next section the top project topics of

30:29 ↗ interest

30:30 ↗ so there's been a lot of public interest

30:33 ↗ in this project

30:35 ↗ since since and even prior to its

30:38 ↗ submittal

30:39 ↗ and so i'm going to address some of the

30:41 ↗ most frequently discussed topics of

30:43 ↗ interest

30:45 ↗ the first one is sipa this has been a

30:47 ↗ very hot topic and is a little bit

30:49 ↗ confusing

30:51 ↗ sometimes so under the state's super

30:53 ↗ rules

30:54 ↗ isd as the government agency project

30:57 ↗ proponent

30:58 ↗ is the lead agency for the proposal that

31:01 ↗ is um in the sipa rules whack 197-11-926

31:06 ↗ the lead agency's responsibilities

31:08 ↗ include preparing the cepa checklist and

31:11 ↗ reviewing the cepa checklist preferably

31:13 ↗ by different groups from you know so

31:16 ↗ that they're a little bit mutually

31:17 ↗ exclusive

31:18 ↗ um and also issuing a threshold

31:21 ↗ determination based on the review of

31:23 ↗ that sipa

31:24 ↗ sipa checklist

31:27 ↗ only the lead agency can make the

31:28 ↗ threshold determination this isn't

31:31 ↗ anything that the dc can decide that

31:33 ↗ threshold determination could take the

31:35 ↗ form of a determination of

31:37 ↗ non-significance a mitigated

31:39 ↗ determination of non-significance

31:41 ↗ or a determination of significance

31:43 ↗ within eis process

31:46 ↗ the city of issaquah is an agency with

31:48 ↗ jurisdiction

31:50 ↗ agencies with jurisdictions have

31:52 ↗ responsibilities to review the cipa

31:54 ↗ checklist and threshold determination

31:56 ↗ when it's circulated

31:58 ↗ submit comments as appropriate

32:00 ↗ make themselves available for

32:02 ↗ consultation during the review process

32:05 ↗ and act as a partner in implementing

32:07 ↗ mitigation conditions

32:11 ↗ isd issued its final mdns on january

32:14 ↗ 17th of this year

32:16 ↗ which means that cepa is considered

32:18 ↗ final for the purpose of processing

32:20 ↗ these land use permits the city of

32:22 ↗ issaquah did not appeal

32:24 ↗ the final cipa determination

32:27 ↗ isd also issued an addendum on february

32:30 ↗ 25th of this year the addendum analyzed

32:33 ↗ phasing of the elementary school

32:35 ↗ building and facilities

32:37 ↗ the addendum does not change any of the

32:39 ↗ underlying threshold determination or

32:41 ↗ mitigation measures identified in the

32:43 ↗ mdns

32:48 ↗ the next topic that we'll discuss is

32:50 ↗ project phasing which is a relatively

32:52 ↗ recent change for this project

32:55 ↗ the master site plan process is

32:57 ↗ specifically intended to authorize

32:59 ↗ phasing of development projects so this

33:01 ↗ phasing approach is

33:03 ↗ is appropriate

33:05 ↗ phase one

33:07 ↗ will consist of the high school athletic

33:09 ↗ facilities site infrastructure and a

33:12 ↗ portion of the elementary school

33:13 ↗ infrastructure

33:15 ↗ the phase ii elementary school boundary

33:17 ↗ is shown on this slide and also in the

33:20 ↗ staff report on page 64.

33:24 ↗ within this geographic area this phase

33:26 ↗ two geographic area that will be

33:28 ↗ constructed in phase one include

33:30 ↗ exterior retaining walls

33:32 ↗ uh utility stub outs

33:35 ↗ earthwork to leave the phase two area at

33:38 ↗ the elementary school subgrade level

33:41 ↗ some temporary stormwater ponds and a

33:43 ↗ temporary material stockpile that is

33:46 ↗ going to be used to fill in the

33:48 ↗ temporary storm

33:49 ↗ stormwater ponds and

33:51 ↗ balance future earthwork for phase two

33:54 ↗ improvements

33:56 ↗ the remainder of the elementary school

33:58 ↗ improvements including

33:59 ↗ the building itself the playground etc

34:02 ↗ those will all be constructed as part of

34:05 ↗ phase two

34:06 ↗ i did also mention some other future

34:09 ↗ phases that were previously identified

34:12 ↗ that includes the

34:13 ↗ the four portables for each school

34:15 ↗ building and the high school addition

34:21 ↗ okay

34:22 ↗ we'll move on to tree removal now

34:25 ↗ so the applicant requested a reduction

34:27 ↗ from 25 percent retention to 23

34:31 ↗ retention

34:33 ↗ this was requested because the base tree

34:35 ↗ count incorrectly included dead and

34:37 ↗ dying trees

34:38 ↗ but the base tree count and retention

34:40 ↗ are based on

34:41 ↗ significant trees which

34:44 ↗ which exclude dead dying and hazardous

34:47 ↗ trees

34:48 ↗ so when correctly counted the project

34:51 ↗ actually complies with tree retention

34:53 ↗ requirements at 26

34:55 ↗ and an aas is not required

35:00 ↗ however if dead and dying trees

35:04 ↗ are included in the baseline

35:05 ↗ calculations for determining the

35:06 ↗ retention percentage the applicant meets

35:09 ↗ the applicable approval criteria for a

35:11 ↗ modification as discussed on pages 90 to

35:14 ↗ 96 in the staff report

35:18 ↗ this retention approach is consistent

35:20 ↗ with the intent of the landscaping

35:22 ↗ chapter of the central issaquah design

35:25 ↗ and development standards

35:27 ↗ it includes groupings of smaller trees

35:29 ↗ and this was confirmed by a supplemental

35:31 ↗ tree survey that was submitted

35:35 ↗ in mid-february and is part of your

35:38 ↗ hearing packet for this evening

35:40 ↗ once you include those smaller trees as

35:43 ↗ contemplated in the modification

35:45 ↗ criteria the site actually results in a

35:48 ↗ 28 retention

35:51 ↗ for for trees

35:53 ↗ there are some unique topography and

35:55 ↗ design constraints with this project and

35:58 ↗ trees will be mitigated on site by

36:00 ↗ planting over 900 new trees

36:02 ↗ so the proposal complies with these

36:05 ↗ modification

36:06 ↗ criteria

36:08 ↗ without the need for an aas

36:12 ↗ the next hot topic we'll touch on is

36:15 ↗ stormwater management this is a little

36:17 ↗ bit complicated because there are

36:19 ↗ multiple jurisdictions and different

36:21 ↗ regulations

36:23 ↗ on-site improvements are regulated by

36:25 ↗ the city of issaquah

36:26 ↗ with the 2014

36:28 ↗ department of ecology stormwater

36:30 ↗ management manual and a 2017 addendum to

36:33 ↗ that manual

36:34 ↗ off-site improvements the frontage

36:36 ↗ improvements that are going in the 228th

36:38 ↗ right-of-way are regulated by the city

36:40 ↗ of sammamish which uses this the 2016

36:43 ↗ king county surface water design manual

36:45 ↗ and their own

36:46 ↗ adopted addendum to that manual so there

36:49 ↗ are a lot of different regulations that

36:51 ↗ overlap here

36:53 ↗ however uh upon review and discussion

36:56 ↗ between city of issaquah and city of

36:58 ↗ samamish staff

37:00 ↗ we found that stormwater requirements

37:02 ↗ are equivalent under both sets of

37:04 ↗ regulations so that includes

37:06 ↗ requirements for flow control

37:09 ↗ for enhanced water quality treatment and

37:11 ↗ for sensitive lake protection because

37:13 ↗ the ultimate drainage location for water

37:15 ↗ leaving the site is leaks and damage

37:19 ↗ there are two drainage basins on the

37:21 ↗ site there's a northeast basin and a

37:23 ↗ southwest basin

37:25 ↗ and a ridge that separates the two of

37:27 ↗ them running through the approximate

37:29 ↗ middle of the property

37:31 ↗ both of these basins eventually

37:33 ↗ discharge to laughing jacob's creek and

37:35 ↗ lake sammamish

37:38 ↗ the applicant has proposed a stormwater

37:41 ↗ management system of underground vaults

37:44 ↗ that will collect runoff from

37:47 ↗ the site

37:49 ↗ and their initial design overestimated

37:51 ↗ the total capacity that was necessary to

37:54 ↗ account for any changes that

37:56 ↗ may occur during the land use permitting

37:58 ↗ process so they've got more than enough

38:00 ↗ capacity for the improvements that

38:02 ↗ they're showing

38:05 ↗ they are complying with the runoff

38:09 ↗ water quality treatment requirements

38:12 ↗ they are providing enhanced treatment

38:14 ↗ which includes not only removal of

38:15 ↗ dissolved metals but also phosphorus to

38:18 ↗ address that sensitive lake overlay

38:22 ↗ they're also complying with flow control

38:24 ↗ requirements

38:25 ↗ these requirements

38:26 ↗ have them detaining stormwater and

38:29 ↗ releasing it at rates equal to or less

38:31 ↗ than fifty percent of the two to fifty

38:33 ↗ year peak flow

38:36 ↗ typical flows are discharged consistent

38:38 ↗ with the

38:40 ↗ historic flows to downstream points and

38:42 ↗ what that means is the the flows that

38:44 ↗ were established when the providence

38:46 ↗ heights college was constructed so in

38:49 ↗ this case that means that it discharges

38:51 ↗ to the providence point stormwater

38:53 ↗ system

38:54 ↗ isd is required to protect that

38:56 ↗ providence point stormwater system both

38:58 ↗ during construction and during operation

39:00 ↗ of the school facilities

39:02 ↗ any

39:03 ↗ peak overflows flows that exceed

39:06 ↗ this

39:08 ↗ two to fifty year peak flow will be

39:10 ↗ collected and conveyed to

39:12 ↗ southeast 43rd way

39:15 ↗ the applicant is going to provide a

39:17 ↗ little bit more detailed information

39:19 ↗ about

39:21 ↗ this part of the stormwater design

39:24 ↗ when we get to their presentation

39:30 ↗ the next topic that we'll discuss

39:33 ↗ is the impacted wetland c

39:37 ↗ so if you want to follow along with me

39:39 ↗ we're looking at images from the staff

39:41 ↗ report on page 104 and 106 which i've

39:45 ↗ just reformatted into this inset map

39:49 ↗ so

39:51 ↗ wetland c is an isolated category 4

39:54 ↗ wetland with a very low habitat value

39:58 ↗ just over

40:00 ↗ 1800 square feet and per the city's

40:03 ↗ critical areas regulations it does not

40:07 ↗ require any kind of buffer

40:10 ↗ the applicant is proposing to fill the

40:12 ↗ wetland and mitigate the impact off-site

40:16 ↗ the impact would be permanent and

40:18 ↗ irreversible

40:20 ↗ and so they're proposing off-site

40:21 ↗ mitigation for that

40:24 ↗ this proposal meets the criteria in

40:27 ↗ the imc

40:29 ↗ for

40:30 ↗ impacting the wetland permanently

40:32 ↗ including mitigation sequencing

40:36 ↗ to to

40:38 ↗ ensure that it's adequately mitigated

40:42 ↗ their mitigation proposal is to purchase

40:45 ↗ one-to-one credits at the east lakes

40:46 ↗ amish mitigation bank

40:48 ↗ this mitigation proposal was already

40:50 ↗ approved by the u.s army corps of

40:52 ↗ engineers and actually the school

40:53 ↗ district has already purchased the

40:55 ↗ credits

40:56 ↗ so it's

40:59 ↗ if it's approved it's already been

41:01 ↗ mitigated for

41:04 ↗ all right

41:07 ↗ the next topic we'll discuss is traffic

41:10 ↗ congestion and access so the project uh

41:13 ↗ will generate about

41:15 ↗ um 1300

41:17 ↗ morning peak trips and

41:19 ↗ 862 pm peak trips

41:23 ↗ the applicant submitted a traffic impact

41:25 ↗ analysis looking at 23 different study

41:28 ↗ intersections in the city of issaquah in

41:31 ↗ the city of sammamish

41:33 ↗ most projected

41:35 ↗ or most intersections are projected to

41:37 ↗ perform at or above the adopted level of

41:39 ↗ service standards in each respective

41:42 ↗ city but some intersection delays do

41:45 ↗ require mitigation

41:48 ↗ in the city of issaquah traffic

41:49 ↗ mitigation will consist of the payment

41:52 ↗ of traffic impact fees

41:55 ↗ various traffic mitigation plans for

41:58 ↗ example for construction traffic

42:02 ↗ and some non-motorized improvements on

42:05 ↗ southeast 43rd way these are actually

42:07 ↗ voluntary improvements that the

42:08 ↗ applicant has

42:09 ↗ chosen to add to their project to tie

42:12 ↗ into the recently completed intersection

42:14 ↗ improvements at 43rd way

42:18 ↗ in the city of sammamish traffic

42:20 ↗ mitigation will include

42:22 ↗ widening and frontage improvements along

42:24 ↗ 228th avenue southeast the frontage

42:27 ↗ improvements

42:28 ↗ include bike lanes and

42:30 ↗ uh and sidewalks that are not currently

42:33 ↗ present on that roadway

42:35 ↗ they are also coordinating with the city

42:37 ↗ of sammamish to

42:39 ↗ make some capacity improvements to the

42:41 ↗ intersection to the north which is 228th

42:43 ↗ and southeast 40th

42:45 ↗ they are also

42:47 ↗ working with the city to discuss a

42:50 ↗ school zone speed limit along the

42:52 ↗ portion of 228th in front of the school

42:55 ↗ property

43:02 ↗ all right

43:03 ↗ the next topic that we'll talk about is

43:05 ↗ proposed uses on site

43:07 ↗ so

43:08 ↗ the high school the elementary school

43:10 ↗ and accessory facilities are all allowed

43:13 ↗ uses when they meet code requirements

43:16 ↗ isd is responsible for programming its

43:20 ↗ school facilities per state law the city

43:23 ↗ can't pick and choose which accessory

43:25 ↗ facilities

43:27 ↗ to include except

43:29 ↗ except as allowed by code

43:31 ↗ but the city can require code compliance

43:34 ↗ and mitigation for impacts associated

43:36 ↗ with those facilities

43:41 ↗ we've also heard a lot about

43:44 ↗ compatibility with the surrounding

43:46 ↗ neighborhood

43:47 ↗ so i've just included a short list of

43:50 ↗ some of the main measures that the

43:52 ↗ project has included

43:54 ↗ that ensures compatibility since this is

43:56 ↗ um this is specifically a review

43:59 ↗ criterion that needs to be addressed

44:02 ↗ so the first one is the vegetated buffer

44:05 ↗ this is this is a voluntary in that it

44:08 ↗ far exceeds the minimum setback

44:10 ↗ requirements

44:12 ↗ it relies primarily on existing

44:15 ↗ vegetation

44:16 ↗ which is mature

44:19 ↗ tall

44:20 ↗ trees um

44:22 ↗ the the vegetation will be enhanced with

44:24 ↗ new plantings especially where some

44:26 ↗ pavement is being removed from that

44:28 ↗ buffer area

44:30 ↗ and those will be

44:31 ↗ um

44:32 ↗ uh emphasizing native and naturalized

44:34 ↗ species that will

44:36 ↗ thrive in this environment

44:39 ↗ this vegetated buffer will also be

44:41 ↗ perpetually protected with a native

44:43 ↗ growth protection easement with

44:46 ↗ both the sipa conditions of approval and

44:48 ↗ the recommended conditions of approval

44:50 ↗ with the staff report

44:53 ↗ the site was designed to

44:56 ↗ face

44:57 ↗ inwardly

44:58 ↗ so noise generating facilities are

45:01 ↗ towards the center of the property as

45:03 ↗ much as possible

45:05 ↗ um

45:06 ↗ one example of that is that there's no

45:07 ↗ lighting or public address system at the

45:10 ↗ ball fields all of that kind of activity

45:13 ↗ is going to be in the center of the site

45:15 ↗ instead of at the periphery where it

45:16 ↗ will minimize impacts to the neighbors

45:20 ↗ there are also some compatibility

45:22 ↗ features associated with the building

45:24 ↗ design

45:26 ↗ so this image is the

45:28 ↗ [Music]

45:29 ↗ the west

45:30 ↗ facade of the elementary school

45:33 ↗ you can see that it

45:34 ↗ is stepped it takes advantage of site

45:36 ↗ topography wherever possible

45:39 ↗ um

45:40 ↗ the inclusion of massing variation

45:42 ↗ modulation and articulation in building

45:45 ↗ design help to reduce the perception of

45:47 ↗ bulk so some portions of the building

45:50 ↗ appear far more set back especially the

45:52 ↗ taller ones

45:53 ↗ compared to

45:55 ↗ some of the

45:56 ↗ some of the i guess

45:59 ↗ masses

46:00 ↗ towards the

46:03 ↗ front of the facade that we're looking

46:05 ↗ at

46:06 ↗ materials were selected specifically to

46:08 ↗ blend with the site context so the

46:11 ↗ applicant is choosing muted colors a

46:14 ↗ very natural looking palette

46:16 ↗ with very limited kinds of accent colors

46:18 ↗ that are still in that earth tone range

46:21 ↗ like rusty rusty looking red

46:24 ↗ or sunset sounds that kind of red

46:27 ↗ their site design and their building

46:29 ↗ materials also integrate some of the

46:31 ↗ materials that are harvested from the

46:33 ↗ site like

46:35 ↗ lumber milled from trees that will be

46:37 ↗ removed boulders that kind of thing

46:40 ↗ that are discovered during earth work

46:46 ↗ lighting design also

46:48 ↗ is

46:49 ↗ also addresses compatibility they are

46:52 ↗ using full cutoff fixtures that prevents

46:54 ↗ light spill over onto the adjacent

46:56 ↗ properties

46:58 ↗ their security lighting is primarily

47:00 ↗ focused on the interior site features

47:03 ↗ there's no athletic lighting on the ball

47:06 ↗ fields which are the facilities that are

47:08 ↗ closest to the property line the stadium

47:11 ↗ track and tennis courts are lit

47:14 ↗ but that lighting has to comply with the

47:16 ↗ sports field lighting requirements in

47:18 ↗ the imc

47:22 ↗ they're also making the athletic

47:24 ↗ facilities public amenities so the

47:26 ↗ public will be able to use these

47:28 ↗ facilities when they're not being used

47:29 ↗ by students um

47:31 ↗ so this this would allow people to to

47:34 ↗ get onto the site to to get a little

47:36 ↗ exercise or to use the facilities

47:40 ↗ as they like

47:44 ↗ all right that concludes our discussion

47:46 ↗ of some topics of interest i'll talk a

47:48 ↗ little bit now about

47:50 ↗ the the permit process and next steps so

47:53 ↗ these permits are all following a level

47:55 ↗ five process and everybody's

47:57 ↗ responsibilities are a little bit

47:58 ↗ different uh so staff responsibilities

48:01 ↗ are to review and make our

48:03 ↗ recommendation to development commission

48:06 ↗ that is all documented in the staff

48:08 ↗ report all of the staff analysis our

48:10 ↗ final recommendation of approval for

48:12 ↗ each of these permits and all of the

48:13 ↗ conditions that we're recommending

48:16 ↗ the development commission makes a

48:18 ↗ recommendation and findings of fact

48:21 ↗ so responsibilities associated with that

48:23 ↗ include holding the public hearing which

48:25 ↗ is what we're doing today and as

48:27 ↗ continued tomorrow and into the future

48:29 ↗ as necessary

48:31 ↗ the development commission also closes

48:33 ↗ the project record

48:34 ↗ and then deliberates and makes that

48:36 ↗ recommendation that gets passed along to

48:38 ↗ city council

48:39 ↗ city council is responsible for deciding

48:42 ↗ so they take the staff recommendation

48:44 ↗ the development recommendation and they

48:46 ↗ use that closed record that was

48:48 ↗ established at the development

48:49 ↗ commission to make a decision once that

48:51 ↗ decision is made it is appealable to the

48:53 ↗ king county superior court

48:59 ↗ our recommendation is based on an

49:02 ↗ analysis of the various criteria of

49:04 ↗ approval applicable to the seven

49:06 ↗ different permits that are the subject

49:08 ↗ of this hearing

49:10 ↗ we evaluated each of these criteria

49:12 ↗ criteria

49:14 ↗ the site development permit

49:16 ↗ criteria began on page 161 there are

49:20 ↗ just three criteria for the sdp

49:24 ↗ and our conclusion was that as

49:25 ↗ conditioned the proposal complies with

49:28 ↗ each of the applicable criteria

49:30 ↗ for the master site plan

49:32 ↗ you can reference page 154 of the staff

49:35 ↗ report there are 13 criteria that we

49:38 ↗ went through

49:39 ↗ that address everything from phasing to

49:42 ↗ compatibility compliance with other code

49:44 ↗ requirements

49:46 ↗ and staff's conclusion is that as

49:48 ↗ conditioned the proposal will comply

49:50 ↗ with

49:51 ↗ all of these applicable criteria as well

49:55 ↗ so based on the

49:57 ↗ applications the submitted plans and

50:00 ↗ technical reports all of the

50:03 ↗ now 105 attachments that are part of the

50:06 ↗ project record and the analysis that's

50:09 ↗ presented in the staff report the

50:11 ↗ administration recommends that the

50:13 ↗ development commission recommend

50:14 ↗ approval of the msp the sdp and the

50:17 ↗ aasas subject to the 52

50:21 ↗ land use conditions in the staff report

50:25 ↗ one last item of cleanup is we're

50:28 ↗ actually recommending a 53rd condition

50:30 ↗ of approval

50:31 ↗ which is that all conditions of approval

50:34 ↗ shall be included in the covenants

50:36 ↗ conditions and restrictions

50:38 ↗ submitted prior to the issuance of the

50:40 ↗ first construction permit for this

50:41 ↗ project

50:46 ↗ next steps so after the public hearing

50:51 ↗ portion of

50:52 ↗ this process the development commission

50:54 ↗ will close the project record

50:56 ↗ make their deliberations make a

50:58 ↗ recommendation to city council

51:00 ↗ city council will deliberate on the

51:02 ↗ project

51:03 ↗ make their decision and issue a notice

51:04 ↗ of action and then

51:06 ↗ it will be uh appealable to chicken

51:10 ↗ county superior court as i mentioned

51:11 ↗ previously once that notice of action is

51:14 ↗ issued and that notice of action will go

51:16 ↗ to all parties of record

51:19 ↗ okay that concludes my presentation

51:22 ↗ it is now time for development

51:24 ↗ commission q a

51:26 ↗ um

51:27 ↗ would you

51:28 ↗ like me to stop sharing my screen

51:32 ↗ commissioners

51:37 ↗ commissioner brennan i think you're

51:38 ↗ muted

51:40 ↗ thank you um

51:42 ↗ why don't you stop sharing um initially

51:45 ↗ here if somebody wants to see one of the

51:48 ↗ one of the diagrams for example we can

51:51 ↗ pull it back up

51:52 ↗ so thanks miss hayward for the

51:55 ↗ good the great presentation

51:57 ↗ uh

51:57 ↗ deliberate walkthrough of the

51:59 ↗ information um commissioners do you have

52:02 ↗ questions for miss hayward

52:06 ↗ please use the chat function and set it

52:08 ↗ to all panelists so we can see

52:10 ↗ and just write question

52:16 ↗ chair brennan i see that uh richard

52:18 ↗ sanford has his hand raised

52:22 ↗ uh commissioner sanford

52:25 ↗ thank you chair brennan this is richard

52:27 ↗ sanford

52:28 ↗ um

52:30 ↗ there were a couple of pieces that i was

52:32 ↗ expecting to see

52:34 ↗ among the many materials and i may have

52:37 ↗ missed them so if i did please let me

52:39 ↗ know i'm looking back at uh the last

52:42 ↗ time i believe that we saw

52:45 ↗ this

52:46 ↗ discussion july 15 2020 community

52:49 ↗ conference

52:50 ↗ in those minutes under general project

52:54 ↗ lighting requirements

52:56 ↗ it says quote the project is required to

52:59 ↗ comply with applicable standards for

53:01 ↗ outdoor lighting

53:02 ↗ and the it also goes on to say the

53:04 ↗ applicant has not provided information

53:06 ↗ about project lighting and we will be

53:08 ↗ required to submit a lighting plan and

53:11 ↗ supporting information with the msp

53:14 ↗ sdp applications

53:17 ↗ and similarly under sports field

53:19 ↗ lighting it says the applicant has not

53:20 ↗ provided lighting information to the

53:22 ↗ stadium

53:23 ↗ goes on to say stadium lighting

53:25 ↗ information must be included in the

53:27 ↗ lighting plans submitted with the msp

53:30 ↗ sdp applications

53:32 ↗ and i i was wondering if that if those

53:35 ↗ uh if that information that seems to be

53:37 ↗ required for this meeting is somewhere

53:39 ↗ in the 5000 pages and i overlooked it

53:43 ↗ it is a very lengthy pocket um so there

53:45 ↗ is an electrical site plan it's uh it's

53:48 ↗ a two-page document that is included as

53:50 ↗ attachment 101 that does identify these

53:55 ↗ the lighting

53:56 ↗ the proposed lighting um on page one and

54:00 ↗ then page

54:01 ↗ two sorry i've just pulled it up and

54:03 ↗ it's loading

54:05 ↗ um i just wanna confirm

54:07 ↗ what i'm telling you

54:08 ↗ yeah

54:11 ↗ that show

54:13 ↗ how that lighting is distributed across

54:15 ↗ the site

54:16 ↗ okay so that that is in that attachment

54:18 ↗ i did see that one

54:20 ↗ uh but i i didn't see really

54:22 ↗ i guess much information about how

54:26 ↗ the lighting would spill from the

54:27 ↗ buildings and so on or any of the

54:30 ↗ intensities of that lighting

54:32 ↗ so that's um that's part of the

54:34 ↗ photometric calculation that's shown on

54:36 ↗ page two those um

54:38 ↗ they're not

54:39 ↗ super intuitive to read

54:42 ↗ especially because a lot of people

54:43 ↗ aren't super familiar with the foot

54:46 ↗ candle

54:47 ↗ um

54:48 ↗ but what they're showing across the site

54:51 ↗ is that their lighting design does

54:54 ↗ comply with the illumination

54:56 ↗ requirements that are set forth in the

54:59 ↗ isoqua municipal code for exterior

55:01 ↗ lighting or for outdoor lighting

55:03 ↗ okay thank you and regarding the sports

55:05 ↗ field lighting especially the height of

55:07 ↗ the light poles on the football field

55:15 ↗ is there a question

55:17 ↗ yes i i don't see any of that

55:19 ↗ information included although in the uh

55:22 ↗ in the minutes from 7 15 it says that

55:24 ↗ stadium lighting information must be

55:26 ↗ included in the lighting plan submitted

55:28 ↗ with the msb stp applications is that

55:30 ↗ still part of the reference that you

55:32 ↗ referred to uh it is not we do have some

55:36 ↗ additional information this was actually

55:39 ↗ included with the um

55:42 ↗ originally with their cipa checklist

55:44 ↗ uh

55:45 ↗ so the attachment number

55:49 ↗ 69 is a memo that summarizes athletic

55:53 ↗ field lighting

55:55 ↗ they'll need to show some additional

55:57 ↗ information with their construction

55:58 ↗ permits that is normal

56:01 ↗ the land use permits are a little bit

56:03 ↗ more

56:03 ↗ uh conceptual as long as they're

56:06 ↗ demonstrating that they

56:08 ↗ are in compliance or can reasonably

56:10 ↗ comply with uh with code requirements

56:13 ↗ with or without conditions that

56:15 ↗ information is considered adequate so

56:17 ↗ they will need to provide more detailed

56:19 ↗ information

56:20 ↗ with their construction permits just to

56:22 ↗ confirm that compliance

56:25 ↗ but we do have some information on the

56:27 ↗ sports field lighting that is adequate

56:29 ↗ for making a decision on the ladies

56:31 ↗ permits okay thank you i'll check that

56:32 ↗ chapman 69.

56:34 ↗ and then just one more one more piece

56:37 ↗ regarding the intersection

56:39 ↗ uh that's proposed 228th avenue

56:41 ↗ southeast i understand is it correct

56:44 ↗ that that's the responsibility of the

56:45 ↗ city of samamish to

56:48 ↗ control that intersection that's

56:49 ↗ proposed to be built

56:52 ↗ that's correct yes the city of samamish

56:54 ↗ owns the 228th avenue southeast right of

56:57 ↗ way and so they are the ones that are

56:59 ↗ responsible for

57:00 ↗ reviewing um and issuing permits

57:03 ↗ for those agreements they will also be

57:05 ↗ responsible for

57:09 ↗ the long-term operation of that signal

57:12 ↗ yeah thank you that's my understanding

57:14 ↗ so

57:15 ↗ do we have any

57:16 ↗ memorandum of understanding or any other

57:20 ↗ document

57:21 ↗ currently between the city of samantha

57:23 ↗ either the city of issaquah or isd

57:25 ↗ regarding those proposed upgrades to 228

57:29 ↗ including the proposed new signal

57:32 ↗ uh we don't currently have a memorandum

57:34 ↗ of understanding

57:37 ↗ we are

57:38 ↗ asking for that in our conditions of

57:41 ↗ approval and i'm trying to scroll

57:44 ↗ quickly

57:45 ↗ to find the right one

57:50 ↗ yes i did see that requirement in the

57:52 ↗ conditions but currently we do not have

57:54 ↗ anything assigned the city of sammamish

57:56 ↗ regarding that intersection then correct

57:58 ↗ correct

57:59 ↗ i want to make sure i wasn't overlooking

58:00 ↗ that okay thank you those are all my

58:02 ↗ questions

58:07 ↗ uh commissioner morgan

58:12 ↗ uh thank you chair brandon a question

58:14 ↗ that had come up from the public about

58:16 ↗ uh centralized squad design and

58:18 ↗ development standards

58:20 ↗ chapter 10.11

58:23 ↗ and

58:24 ↗ prohibiting tree removal from a vacant

58:26 ↗ lot

58:28 ↗ prior to development

58:31 ↗ the question does that requirement then

58:33 ↗ apply to

58:35 ↗ the elementary school site that would be

58:38 ↗ have trees removed even though the site

58:40 ↗ would not be expected to be developed

58:41 ↗ for several years sounds like

58:46 ↗ no

58:47 ↗ um that

58:48 ↗ that specific requirement is uh to

58:51 ↗ prevent

58:53 ↗ treat like clear cutting or tree removal

58:56 ↗ on properties

58:57 ↗ that aren't aren't developed or won't be

59:00 ↗ developed the msp specifically

59:02 ↗ contemplates phasing that's the the

59:05 ↗ purpose of the master site plan is to

59:07 ↗ authorize phasing over the course of

59:10 ↗ years

59:11 ↗ um

59:12 ↗ there

59:13 ↗ we we talked about

59:15 ↗ this um the tree removal

59:18 ↗ on the phase ii area

59:21 ↗ and overall

59:23 ↗ this will

59:25 ↗ give an opportunity to get some of that

59:28 ↗ screening vegetated vegetation planted

59:30 ↗ as early as possible so that it can grow

59:33 ↗ as quickly as possible before

59:35 ↗ those phase two improvements are built

59:38 ↗ it'll also replace what are some

59:42 ↗ poor

59:42 ↗ poor conditioned trees with much

59:45 ↗ healthier trees that will be actively

59:48 ↗ maintained monitored and maintained by

59:50 ↗ the school district so there are also

59:52 ↗ some advantages even to

59:55 ↗ uh to letting that tree removal and that

59:57 ↗ replanting occur with the phase one

59:59 ↗ improvements

1:00:01 ↗ thank you and is there is there a

1:00:03 ↗ requirement for construction on that

1:00:06 ↗ site within a certain number of years

1:00:10 ↗ some limit that it can stay vacant

1:00:13 ↗ uh we have

1:00:14 ↗ put a condition of approval

1:00:16 ↗ relative to

1:00:18 ↗ um to that

1:00:20 ↗ so

1:00:21 ↗ um let me just see if i can

1:00:26 ↗ there are quite a few conditions

1:00:31 ↗ oh condition number 11. so under this

1:00:34 ↗ condition of approval

1:00:36 ↗ the land use decisions would be valid

1:00:38 ↗ for three years from the later of either

1:00:41 ↗ application approval or the resolution

1:00:43 ↗ of appeals

1:00:45 ↗ um

1:00:46 ↗ just in case it takes like if if there

1:00:48 ↗ is an appeal court appeals can take a

1:00:49 ↗ little while to resolve

1:00:51 ↗ um and then one year extensions can be

1:00:54 ↗ requested

1:00:56 ↗ by the applicant for review by city

1:00:59 ↗ staff before they're approved

1:01:02 ↗ that would

1:01:03 ↗ then allow the city to evaluate whether

1:01:05 ↗ construction is proceeding on pace or if

1:01:08 ↗ they'll need to come back for a new land

1:01:09 ↗ use process

1:01:11 ↗ great thank you

1:01:19 ↗ other questions from commission members

1:01:30 ↗ um i i've got a couple

1:01:32 ↗ commissioner morgan did you have another

1:01:34 ↗ question is that um i did i just i guess

1:01:37 ↗ want to make clear would we have we'll

1:01:39 ↗ have chances to ask questions of the

1:01:41 ↗ applicant as well

1:01:43 ↗ yes

1:01:44 ↗ following the applicant's

1:01:46 ↗ presentation will have questions for the

1:01:48 ↗ applicant

1:01:49 ↗ um

1:01:50 ↗ so i had a couple i had a question uh

1:01:53 ↗ related to the a follow-up to

1:01:55 ↗ commissioner morgan's question regarding

1:01:56 ↗ the elementary school so

1:01:58 ↗ the condition relates to the

1:02:01 ↗ the life of the essentially the decision

1:02:03 ↗ or the permits related to elementary

1:02:05 ↗ school but should they not proceed would

1:02:08 ↗ there be

1:02:09 ↗ in the conditions any mitigation that

1:02:11 ↗ would be required because what we'll

1:02:13 ↗ have is a

1:02:14 ↗ temporary

1:02:16 ↗ condition

1:02:17 ↗ that was anticipated with

1:02:19 ↗ as you mentioned that retaining walls

1:02:21 ↗ would be constructed in your

1:02:22 ↗ presentation

1:02:23 ↗ uh at certain locations around the

1:02:26 ↗ proposed elementary school site and then

1:02:28 ↗ there would be some stockpiling so if

1:02:30 ↗ they don't proceed is there

1:02:32 ↗ for whatever reason that might occur

1:02:34 ↗ they proceeded with the

1:02:36 ↗ initial phase but not phase two is there

1:02:38 ↗ a mitigation requirement or refurbish

1:02:41 ↗ revegetation of the property that would

1:02:43 ↗ be necessary um or is that stated

1:02:47 ↗ so um this is addressed a little bit in

1:02:50 ↗ condition 12.

1:02:53 ↗ so this um

1:02:55 ↗ this phase two area once those

1:02:58 ↗ uh the limited number of improvements

1:03:00 ↗ are constructed the stockpile has to be

1:03:04 ↗ hydro seeded so it will be a

1:03:06 ↗ green

1:03:07 ↗ mound

1:03:09 ↗ and it has to be fenced consistent with

1:03:12 ↗ the aesthetic treatment on the rest of

1:03:14 ↗ the site so it's it can't just have

1:03:18 ↗ orange construction fencing around it

1:03:19 ↗ forever

1:03:21 ↗ um

1:03:22 ↗ and it has to have functional

1:03:25 ↗ uh temporary erosion and sediment

1:03:28 ↗ control measures so those are the the

1:03:29 ↗ temporary stormwater ponds

1:03:31 ↗ so those those are

1:03:35 ↗ the requirements as we've contemplated

1:03:37 ↗ them in the land use permits but

1:03:41 ↗ there's also

1:03:42 ↗ some opportunity to put additional

1:03:45 ↗ conditions related to

1:03:47 ↗ those specific

1:03:49 ↗ constructed features on the site work

1:03:52 ↗ permits that authorize those initial

1:03:54 ↗ improvements

1:03:56 ↗ so that that gets addressed i believe

1:03:58 ↗ it's with site work one

1:04:00 ↗ okay

1:04:01 ↗ uh and this may be a question that's

1:04:03 ↗ more for the applicant following their

1:04:06 ↗ presentation but it's related to the

1:04:07 ↗ lighting and the use of the lighting on

1:04:09 ↗ sports fields and amplified sound

1:04:12 ↗ uh limitations on the hours under which

1:04:15 ↗ that

1:04:16 ↗ um

1:04:17 ↗ those events that lighting um that

1:04:20 ↗ amplified sound can be used

1:04:23 ↗ so there are some uh some self-imposed

1:04:28 ↗ limitations that the applicant

1:04:30 ↗ included in their mitigation

1:04:33 ↗ we've also included some

1:04:36 ↗ condition language in

1:04:38 ↗ our recommended conditions of approval

1:04:41 ↗ um i'll refer you to

1:04:46 ↗ position number

1:04:53 ↗ sorry bear with me while i'm scrolling

1:04:56 ↗ that's fine

1:05:00 ↗ there's a lot of material with this one

1:05:03 ↗ there is it's a very lengthy staff

1:05:05 ↗ report

1:05:06 ↗ so we have some noise requirements that

1:05:09 ↗ start at condition

1:05:12 ↗ let's see uh 37 so 37

1:05:18 ↗ prohibits

1:05:20 ↗ plus a pre-trip bus inspections during

1:05:23 ↗ nighttime hours which are defined by

1:05:25 ↗ state law which is what the city adopts

1:05:27 ↗ as 10 pm to 7 a.m

1:05:30 ↗ uh so that's where the noise

1:05:32 ↗ mitigation begins in our recommended

1:05:35 ↗ recommendations we have requirements for

1:05:38 ↗ noise monitoring

1:05:40 ↗ um

1:05:41 ↗ in 38 and 39

1:05:45 ↗ and then

1:05:57 ↗ trying to find

1:05:59 ↗ a one

1:06:06 ↗ we had um

1:06:11 ↗ cannot

1:06:12 ↗ find it uh

1:06:13 ↗ but we we did have a condition that um

1:06:16 ↗ that had them

1:06:17 ↗ turning off their

1:06:19 ↗ sound system

1:06:21 ↗ at uh

1:06:22 ↗ at 10 pm or as soon as the event was

1:06:26 ↗ concluded

1:06:28 ↗ um the sound system and using

1:06:30 ↗ uh low level lighting instead of field

1:06:33 ↗ lighting to assist with egress

1:06:36 ↗ great so um thanks for that uh i'll i'll

1:06:39 ↗ do a follow-up with the applicant to

1:06:41 ↗ understand a little bit more about their

1:06:43 ↗ plans particularly around

1:06:45 ↗ mitigation

1:06:47 ↗ there's noise monitoring but

1:06:50 ↗ against what standard it's not clear so

1:06:53 ↗ i'll ask some follow-ups with the

1:06:54 ↗ applicant i'm sure

1:06:56 ↗ their team has got

1:06:58 ↗ some additional information to share on

1:06:59 ↗ that are there other questions from

1:07:01 ↗ commission members

1:07:04 ↗ commissioner brooke i mean commissioner

1:07:06 ↗ shore sorry

1:07:08 ↗ hello brook shore

1:07:09 ↗ uh is that an appropriate time to make

1:07:11 ↗ comments on the conditions themselves

1:07:15 ↗ so this is really an opportunity to ask

1:07:18 ↗ questions um or clarifications

1:07:21 ↗ so if there's something on a condition

1:07:23 ↗ that isn't clear

1:07:26 ↗ or doesn't address a situation that

1:07:28 ↗ you're thinking about that would be it

1:07:30 ↗ put it in the form of a question i think

1:07:31 ↗ that would help

1:07:33 ↗ okay

1:07:34 ↗ um

1:07:35 ↗ so for item 36 which is the lighting

1:07:40 ↗ um similar topic as commissioner sanford

1:07:44 ↗ was asking about

1:07:45 ↗ it says that lighting information must

1:07:48 ↗ be submitted

1:07:49 ↗ but um

1:07:51 ↗ there's no criteria that that

1:07:54 ↗ would be held to so i don't know if that

1:07:56 ↗ should maybe be added to that condition

1:07:59 ↗ something you know it will be submitted

1:08:01 ↗ and then what requirements would it be

1:08:03 ↗ measured against

1:08:06 ↗ um so we we would measure the

1:08:10 ↗ performance of their

1:08:13 ↗ their selected products so when we ask

1:08:15 ↗ for fixture details and cut sheets

1:08:17 ↗ we're looking for specific product

1:08:19 ↗ information and we would evaluate those

1:08:22 ↗ against the code requirement so those

1:08:24 ↗ are the adopted

1:08:26 ↗ outdoor lighting standards

1:08:28 ↗ okay and that

1:08:29 ↗ that would address light spill over to

1:08:32 ↗ the neighboring properties things like

1:08:34 ↗ that yes

1:08:38 ↗ and then condition 38

1:08:41 ↗ um

1:08:44 ↗ says that

1:08:46 ↗ noise levels should be monitored

1:08:48 ↗ and

1:08:50 ↗ if the val if the maximum allowed levels

1:08:53 ↗ are exceeded

1:08:55 ↗ there would be mitigation and review for

1:08:58 ↗ approval but it doesn't really say that

1:09:00 ↗ it would be implemented

1:09:02 ↗ so um

1:09:06 ↗ maybe just a wording thing there

1:09:08 ↗ and then

1:09:09 ↗ on 39 with regards to

1:09:12 ↗ um

1:09:14 ↗ sporting event

1:09:16 ↗ noise

1:09:17 ↗ there's no action required

1:09:21 ↗ if

1:09:22 ↗ levels are exceeded

1:09:25 ↗ so it says they will be monitored but

1:09:26 ↗ there's no

1:09:29 ↗ no remedy if they are exceeded

1:09:34 ↗ okay

1:09:35 ↗ we'll look at both of those conditions

1:09:37 ↗ okay and then i did not see any hours

1:09:41 ↗ for events

1:09:44 ↗ all right

1:09:45 ↗ i could i'll double check

1:09:47 ↗ and i can bring some additional

1:09:49 ↗ information about this to tomorrow's

1:09:52 ↗ session

1:09:54 ↗ okay thank you that's all for now

1:10:01 ↗ uh other questions from the commission

1:10:06 ↗ uh

1:10:08 ↗ commissioner arcata

1:10:12 ↗ give me just a moment here to unmute him

1:10:22 ↗ hello thank you chairman a question on

1:10:26 ↗ on the conditional approval um with the

1:10:29 ↗ 52 or 53 conditions

1:10:32 ↗ they range from design construction and

1:10:34 ↗ operation

1:10:35 ↗ how are these conditions enforced

1:10:39 ↗ they'll all um they'll all have a little

1:10:42 ↗ bit different well not all of them there

1:10:44 ↗ are there are a few different

1:10:45 ↗ enforcement mechanisms so

1:10:48 ↗ um because the the city also has to

1:10:52 ↗ issue construction permits some of the

1:10:54 ↗ conditions are tied to

1:10:56 ↗ um

1:10:57 ↗ to those construction permits where

1:10:59 ↗ we're relevant so um

1:11:01 ↗ you know perhaps additional information

1:11:03 ↗ is required to be submitted with a

1:11:04 ↗ specific application

1:11:06 ↗ and then we would use the review process

1:11:08 ↗ of that application to resolve any

1:11:10 ↗ issues with the information that was

1:11:12 ↗ provided

1:11:13 ↗ in some cases it might be tied to

1:11:16 ↗ occupancy of the building

1:11:19 ↗ so before the school is allowed to

1:11:21 ↗ operate they need to demonstrate

1:11:23 ↗ compliance with with those conditions of

1:11:25 ↗ approval

1:11:26 ↗ um some of them like the noise

1:11:29 ↗ monitoring ones that we discussed are

1:11:30 ↗ ongoing and those have um

1:11:33 ↗ those have some

1:11:35 ↗ regular reporting requirements for the

1:11:37 ↗ life of the project

1:11:40 ↗ so it depends a little bit on the

1:11:42 ↗ specific condition that you're looking

1:11:44 ↗ at but there are a variety of

1:11:47 ↗ enforcement mechanisms that are

1:11:48 ↗ available to the city

1:11:50 ↗ in the event that there they have

1:11:53 ↗ demonstrated compliance with their

1:11:55 ↗ with their permit applications and then

1:11:57 ↗ something changes the city also has the

1:12:00 ↗ power to stop work on the construction

1:12:02 ↗ site until a violation is resolved so

1:12:04 ↗ there there are a lot of different

1:12:06 ↗ options

1:12:09 ↗ does the applicant self-monitor or is

1:12:13 ↗ the city

1:12:14 ↗ providing regular inspections and

1:12:18 ↗ assessments

1:12:20 ↗ um as a consultant i'm a little bit less

1:12:23 ↗ familiar generally speaking there's a

1:12:25 ↗ building inspector uh but i'd actually

1:12:27 ↗ love to turn it over to lucy to explain

1:12:30 ↗ a little bit more about the city's

1:12:31 ↗ process

1:12:33 ↗ so we have

1:12:35 ↗ inspectors in three categories one is

1:12:39 ↗ building inspector

1:12:41 ↗ inspectors

1:12:43 ↗ we have site inspectors that are

1:12:47 ↗ looking at infrastructure

1:12:50 ↗ looking at

1:12:52 ↗ the erosion control and then we also

1:12:55 ↗ have a planning inspector who is

1:12:59 ↗ coordinating the landscape and other

1:13:01 ↗ site features that are not

1:13:04 ↗ under the review of the site inspectors

1:13:09 ↗ okay uh one one follow-up um

1:13:12 ↗ with the

1:13:13 ↗ when we're talking about the temporary

1:13:14 ↗ stockpile for the excavation

1:13:17 ↗ and you have i i guess there's semi

1:13:19 ↗ temporary or permanent erosion control

1:13:22 ↗ typically that requires an inspection a

1:13:24 ↗ regular inspection is that

1:13:26 ↗ uh again done by the city then

1:13:29 ↗ um i believe it's done in

1:13:32 ↗ combination with typically a project of

1:13:35 ↗ this size has its own um

1:13:38 ↗ uh

1:13:39 ↗ inspector uh

1:13:40 ↗ own person who's an expert and

1:13:43 ↗ responsible for the um water quality on

1:13:47 ↗ site and they are coordinating regularly

1:13:49 ↗ with the city site inspector

1:13:53 ↗ and if you know more details i'm going

1:13:55 ↗ to phone a friend

1:13:57 ↗ thank you

1:13:58 ↗ the city also would take complaints from

1:14:02 ↗ um a joiners or

1:14:04 ↗ people that notice problems on the site

1:14:06 ↗ is that

1:14:08 ↗ sure

1:14:09 ↗ so if somebody notices something they

1:14:11 ↗ can report it

1:14:18 ↗ are there any other questions from the

1:14:19 ↗ commission

1:14:22 ↗ one follow-up

1:14:24 ↗ okay i'm sorry

1:14:27 ↗ um yeah commissioner shore

1:14:29 ↗ and

1:14:30 ↗ as far as the enforcement of the

1:14:32 ↗ conditions

1:14:34 ↗ could you maybe restate the added item

1:14:37 ↗ 53

1:14:38 ↗ and explain how does that strengthen

1:14:42 ↗ enforcement of the conditions is that

1:14:44 ↗ something that's unusual or is that

1:14:45 ↗ standard

1:14:47 ↗ um okay so the

1:14:50 ↗ the

1:14:50 ↗ additional condition number

1:14:55 ↗ there you go uh 53 is that the

1:14:58 ↗ conditions of approval shall be included

1:15:01 ↗ in the covenants conditions and

1:15:03 ↗ restrictions or ccnrs

1:15:05 ↗ submitted prior to

1:15:08 ↗ the issuance of the first construction

1:15:11 ↗ permit for the project that's the

1:15:13 ↗ language of the

1:15:15 ↗ condition

1:15:17 ↗ and

1:15:18 ↗ that

1:15:20 ↗ so that ccnr document is like a ccnr

1:15:24 ↗ document if any of you lives in an hoa

1:15:27 ↗ or something like that those are private

1:15:29 ↗ rules

1:15:30 ↗ so in the event that

1:15:33 ↗ there's a violation of the ccnr's it

1:15:36 ↗ would be

1:15:37 ↗ like a private property issue it

1:15:40 ↗ provides one one more

1:15:42 ↗ enforcement mechanism

1:15:46 ↗ compared to compared to not having it

1:15:52 ↗ okay thank you

1:15:56 ↗ thank you commissioner sure are there

1:15:59 ↗ other uh questions from the commission

1:16:02 ↗ before we move to the

1:16:04 ↗ applicant's presentation

1:16:09 ↗ um

1:16:10 ↗ i'm seeing none

1:16:12 ↗ we've been um almost an hour and a half

1:16:14 ↗ here we're going to be going until about

1:16:16 ↗ 10. this is probably a good spot just

1:16:19 ↗ take a quick uh

1:16:20 ↗ a quick break

1:16:21 ↗ um let's just say um until

1:16:25 ↗ um let's see what time we have

1:16:27 ↗ about uh until uh 10 or excuse me 8 35

1:16:32 ↗ so almost a 10 minute break so we can

1:16:35 ↗ stretch our legs a minute and get our

1:16:36 ↗ keep our attention focused so we'll

1:16:38 ↗ recess uh until 8 35.

1:16:42 ↗ take

1:26:28 ↗ okay we have returned from recess so

1:26:31 ↗ hopefully everybody had a chance to

1:26:33 ↗ stretch their legs i know i needed to

1:26:34 ↗ have been sitting in a chair all day

1:26:36 ↗ today um so it's an opportunity now to

1:26:40 ↗ hear from the applicant so um

1:26:42 ↗ if the applicant would present the

1:26:45 ↗ information that you would like to

1:26:46 ↗ present to the commission this evening

1:26:48 ↗ and introduce your your team uh that

1:26:50 ↗ would be helpful so i'm not sure who

1:26:54 ↗ on the applicant team is taking lead but

1:26:56 ↗ um

1:26:58 ↗ please introduce yourself and and

1:26:59 ↗ proceed

1:27:01 ↗ good evening members of the development

1:27:03 ↗ commission city staff and other

1:27:05 ↗ residents of israel my name is tom

1:27:07 ↗ mullins and i'm the director of capital

1:27:09 ↗ projects at the issaquah school district

1:27:12 ↗ first i wanted to thank the city staff

1:27:14 ↗ and the isd team for getting us to this

1:27:16 ↗ juncture in the project

1:27:18 ↗ a lot of hard work has happened since

1:27:20 ↗ the initial pre-application over two and

1:27:23 ↗ a half years ago

1:27:25 ↗ representing the school district for

1:27:27 ↗ tonight's presentation will be ron

1:27:29 ↗ thiele superintendent of the issaquah

1:27:31 ↗ school district

1:27:33 ↗ michael davis bassetti architects

1:27:36 ↗ jordan keel with passetti architects

1:27:40 ↗ todd sauwan ahbl

1:27:43 ↗ marnie heffron heffern transportation

1:27:47 ↗ denise stiff arm school district legal

1:27:49 ↗ counsel

1:27:51 ↗ first up will be superintendent thiele

1:27:54 ↗ he will be speaking from his phone

1:27:56 ↗ tonight due to an unstable internet

1:27:58 ↗ connection um superintendent of thiele

1:28:02 ↗ take it away

1:28:07 ↗ i'm not sure if folks can hear me

1:28:10 ↗ yes we are here you find them

1:28:13 ↗ wonderful thank you my name is ron

1:28:15 ↗ thiele and i'm the superintendent of the

1:28:17 ↗ issaquah school district i do apologize

1:28:20 ↗ if i'm a little clunky with my remarks

1:28:22 ↗ tonight i'm i'm not very familiar with

1:28:24 ↗ this format and as tom mentioned uh as

1:28:28 ↗ luck would have it i lost my internet

1:28:30 ↗ connection right as the meeting was

1:28:31 ↗ starting earlier tonight so i am on my

1:28:34 ↗ phone so uh thank you for putting up

1:28:36 ↗ with me a bit

1:28:37 ↗ i also want to start by thanking the

1:28:39 ↗ city staff for their extensive work with

1:28:42 ↗ the district's project team i also want

1:28:44 ↗ to thank the development commission for

1:28:46 ↗ your careful review and consideration of

1:28:48 ↗ this proposal

1:28:50 ↗ in a few moments i'll turn this over to

1:28:52 ↗ the district's design team to walk

1:28:54 ↗ through the technical elements of the

1:28:56 ↗ project

1:28:57 ↗ but i'd first like to present some

1:28:59 ↗ background and touch on a few of the

1:29:01 ↗ project planning components

1:29:05 ↗ there is extensive documentation in the

1:29:07 ↗ project record of our district's search

1:29:10 ↗ for needed school sites

1:29:13 ↗ but i'd like to share again why the

1:29:15 ↗ project is designed in this location is

1:29:18 ↗ critical to our community's needs

1:29:21 ↗ this site was identified following an

1:29:23 ↗ extensive property search across our

1:29:25 ↗ district that began some 10 years ago in

1:29:28 ↗ 2012

1:29:29 ↗ at that time

1:29:31 ↗ king county at that time adopted

1:29:33 ↗ policies limiting limiting new schools

1:29:36 ↗ to urban lands and directing cities to

1:29:39 ↗ consider zoning and development code

1:29:42 ↗ mechanisms to facilitate school siting

1:29:45 ↗ for our district we face the dual

1:29:48 ↗ challenge of having only a third of our

1:29:51 ↗ land mass within the urban area

1:29:54 ↗ and a very competitive development

1:29:56 ↗ environment

1:29:57 ↗ we also needed to locate a site large

1:30:00 ↗ enough for a high school program

1:30:02 ↗ this property when located fit our list

1:30:05 ↗ of needs

1:30:07 ↗ first it is geographically centered

1:30:09 ↗ between our two overcrowded high schools

1:30:12 ↗ and near identified high school and

1:30:15 ↗ elementary student needs

1:30:17 ↗ and second its size allows us to cite a

1:30:20 ↗ high school using the city's compact

1:30:22 ↗ school regulations

1:30:24 ↗ and also take advantage of shared space

1:30:27 ↗ opportunities

1:30:28 ↗ for a co-located elementary school

1:30:32 ↗ the property was under contract in an

1:30:34 ↗ early permitting stages for a large

1:30:36 ↗ residential subdivision when the

1:30:38 ↗ district filed a condemnation petition

1:30:41 ↗ in 2016.

1:30:44 ↗ i anticipate you'll hear in public

1:30:46 ↗ comment that our district is either no

1:30:48 ↗ longer planning for or doesn't need a

1:30:51 ↗ new elementary school and that our

1:30:53 ↗ proposal should not include the planning

1:30:55 ↗ for that school

1:30:57 ↗ that is false

1:30:59 ↗ we announced as a district in december

1:31:01 ↗ of 2021

1:31:03 ↗ that we

1:31:04 ↗ we were delaying the elementary school

1:31:06 ↗ construction from its original schedule

1:31:09 ↗ that announcement identified the reasons

1:31:11 ↗ for the delay

1:31:12 ↗ the first reason is because our

1:31:14 ↗ elementary enrollment has declined

1:31:16 ↗ over the course of the covet 19 pandemic

1:31:19 ↗ and the announcement recognized this

1:31:21 ↗ phenomena has relieved some of the

1:31:24 ↗ existing strain on our elementary school

1:31:26 ↗ facilities

1:31:28 ↗ the announcement also identified that

1:31:30 ↗ project costs have increased

1:31:32 ↗ considerably since 2016 the 2016

1:31:35 ↗ bond as a result of delays in part due

1:31:38 ↗ to litigation before and after we

1:31:41 ↗ acquired the property related inflation

1:31:44 ↗ added permitting costs and new site

1:31:46 ↗ requirements

1:31:48 ↗ nonetheless with recent and ongoing new

1:31:51 ↗ development as well as the return to

1:31:53 ↗ in-person learning

1:31:55 ↗ we expect elementary enrollment growth

1:31:57 ↗ to return

1:31:58 ↗ to pre-pandemic levels in the coming

1:32:00 ↗ years and we must continue to plan for

1:32:03 ↗ that

1:32:05 ↗ at the same time

1:32:06 ↗ our high school enrollment growth

1:32:08 ↗ remained steady and exceeded projections

1:32:11 ↗ for this year

1:32:12 ↗ we needed these two new schools in 2016

1:32:15 ↗ when they were proposed

1:32:17 ↗ and that need continues to exist

1:32:22 ↗ i do want to take a moment to

1:32:23 ↗ acknowledge that we have and will

1:32:25 ↗ continue to use a band-aid approach with

1:32:29 ↗ portables at both the elementary and

1:32:31 ↗ high school level to deal with capacity

1:32:33 ↗ needs while we wait for these two new

1:32:36 ↗ schools

1:32:37 ↗ portables are intended to be a temporary

1:32:39 ↗ capacity solution

1:32:41 ↗ student learning in portable classrooms

1:32:44 ↗ is not ideal

1:32:46 ↗ it removes students from the main school

1:32:48 ↗ building

1:32:49 ↗ often requires students to travel a

1:32:51 ↗ distance outdoors during the school day

1:32:54 ↗ and over taxes the school's core

1:32:56 ↗ facilities including gymnasiums

1:32:59 ↗ lunchrooms bathrooms and special purpose

1:33:01 ↗ rooms

1:33:03 ↗ i'll also note that portable classrooms

1:33:05 ↗ can present some additional security

1:33:07 ↗ challenges that we must consider and

1:33:09 ↗ address as part of our campuses overall

1:33:12 ↗ security plan

1:33:14 ↗ as a district administrator and leader

1:33:17 ↗ in the isd i want to see all of our

1:33:19 ↗ students learning in the intended school

1:33:21 ↗ building whenever possible

1:33:25 ↗ i also want to address a few of the

1:33:27 ↗ points we've heard about the high school

1:33:29 ↗ programming needs

1:33:32 ↗ in 2016 our voters approved a bond

1:33:34 ↗ package by over 70 percent that included

1:33:38 ↗ the district's fourth comprehensive high

1:33:40 ↗ school

1:33:41 ↗ and the need based upon our growing high

1:33:44 ↗ school enrollment

1:33:45 ↗ to provide a full high school facility

1:33:49 ↗ and program similar to those at issaquah

1:33:52 ↗ liberty and skyline high schools

1:33:56 ↗ we are in desperate need today of

1:33:58 ↗ additional high school capacity and that

1:34:01 ↗ need will only grow

1:34:03 ↗ we are currently over permanent capacity

1:34:06 ↗ at issaquah and skyline

1:34:09 ↗ by more than 635 students meaning that

1:34:12 ↗ skyline high school and issaquah high

1:34:14 ↗ school have larger student enrollment

1:34:17 ↗ than their built capacities

1:34:20 ↗ and being nearly 20 percent over

1:34:22 ↗ permanent capacity results in very

1:34:24 ↗ crowded hallways in common spaces

1:34:27 ↗ and you might imagine how that felt to

1:34:30 ↗ people when they returned to in-person

1:34:31 ↗ learning

1:34:32 ↗ during the pandemic whereas we were

1:34:34 ↗ trying to keep physical distance it was

1:34:36 ↗ very challenging in our overcrowded

1:34:38 ↗ schools

1:34:41 ↗ moreover these overcrowded schools also

1:34:43 ↗ limit teacher planning and preparation

1:34:45 ↗ space

1:34:46 ↗ create supervision challenges and

1:34:48 ↗ frankly wear out the buildings faster

1:34:52 ↗ it's also important to acknowledge that

1:34:54 ↗ i've heard from many in our school

1:34:56 ↗ community that they expect that their

1:34:58 ↗ student will have all the same

1:35:00 ↗ opportunities and experiences at any of

1:35:02 ↗ our neighborhood high schools regardless

1:35:05 ↗ of where they live in the district

1:35:07 ↗ i think it's important

1:35:09 ↗ also to remember that these students are

1:35:11 ↗ already in our system

1:35:13 ↗ and the communities around issaquah high

1:35:15 ↗ school and skyline high school are

1:35:18 ↗ bearing the brunt of the overcrowding

1:35:20 ↗ not only with over capacity schools but

1:35:23 ↗ with related traffic issues and parking

1:35:25 ↗ issues just to name a couple of the

1:35:27 ↗ neighborhood impacts

1:35:31 ↗ we know

1:35:32 ↗ we also know that there have been

1:35:33 ↗ questions about why this proposal

1:35:36 ↗ includes a multi-purpose field with a

1:35:38 ↗ grandstand when we also have similar

1:35:41 ↗ facilities at skyline and issaquah high

1:35:43 ↗ school

1:35:45 ↗ as a practical matter in order to

1:35:47 ↗ satisfy physical education requirements

1:35:50 ↗ which are state mandated requirements

1:35:52 ↗ and provide students with equal access

1:35:54 ↗ to extracurricular programs as students

1:35:57 ↗ at the other schools

1:36:00 ↗ we we would need land for the field and

1:36:03 ↗ the track as well as ball fields even

1:36:06 ↗ without the covered grandstand

1:36:09 ↗ our school play fields throughout the

1:36:11 ↗ district are heavily scheduled with

1:36:13 ↗ school and community use

1:36:16 ↗ schools by default are the primary

1:36:18 ↗ community playfield providers and we are

1:36:21 ↗ happy to contribute this community asset

1:36:25 ↗ in no case would we ever consider busing

1:36:28 ↗ students to another location for

1:36:30 ↗ physical education

1:36:31 ↗ and it is very difficult and expensive

1:36:34 ↗ to bus students on and off their campus

1:36:36 ↗ for athletics activities practices and

1:36:39 ↗ events

1:36:41 ↗ that scenario would severely compromise

1:36:43 ↗ the program requirements unnecessarily

1:36:45 ↗ disrupt our students educational

1:36:47 ↗ experience and would also create

1:36:49 ↗ unnecessary traffic impacts

1:36:53 ↗ again we've also heard from our

1:36:54 ↗ community a repeated message of equity

1:36:58 ↗ among our schools

1:36:59 ↗ that is that students at one school have

1:37:02 ↗ access to the same programmatic benefits

1:37:04 ↗ of students at a like school

1:37:07 ↗ as the design team will explain the

1:37:09 ↗ multi-purpose field incorporates

1:37:11 ↗ specific design and operational features

1:37:14 ↗ to minimize operational impacts to the

1:37:17 ↗ surrounding properties

1:37:20 ↗ finally i want to share some of the

1:37:22 ↗ district's efforts at community outreach

1:37:24 ↗ and

1:37:25 ↗ as we attempt to hear neighbors concerns

1:37:29 ↗ with the development of any school site

1:37:32 ↗ we know that it's important and our

1:37:34 ↗ obligation to work with the neighborhood

1:37:37 ↗ our three other comprehensive high

1:37:38 ↗ schools

1:37:40 ↗ and our project-based high school

1:37:42 ↗ as well as many of our other schools are

1:37:44 ↗ in residential neighborhoods

1:37:47 ↗ we've tried this best as possible with

1:37:50 ↗ this project to be responsive

1:37:52 ↗ even with years of litigation and

1:37:55 ↗ challenges

1:37:56 ↗ in 2016 when we first started review of

1:37:59 ↗ this property i personally spoke with a

1:38:02 ↗ number of

1:38:03 ↗ residents of the providence point

1:38:05 ↗ community through their kiwanis club i

1:38:08 ↗ frequently give presentations there over

1:38:10 ↗ the years

1:38:11 ↗ i spoke on the phone directly with other

1:38:14 ↗ providence points residents as well

1:38:18 ↗ i will note that when the schools were

1:38:20 ↗ an idea the feedback was generally

1:38:22 ↗ positive especially when people heard

1:38:25 ↗ that

1:38:26 ↗ if not schools it was likely to be a

1:38:28 ↗ large subdivision

1:38:33 ↗ at that point

1:38:35 ↗ during um at that point during the the

1:38:38 ↗ city's review of the proposed rezone

1:38:42 ↗ we met oh i apologize i missed a piece

1:38:44 ↗ there we we struggled because of the

1:38:46 ↗ litigation related to the acquisition of

1:38:48 ↗ the property we weren't able to

1:38:50 ↗ re-engage with the neighbors until 2019

1:38:54 ↗ when we finally acquired the property at

1:38:58 ↗ that point during the city's review of

1:39:00 ↗ the proposed rezone we met with the hoa

1:39:03 ↗ board representatives

1:39:05 ↗ of the providence point community on at

1:39:07 ↗ least six different occasions including

1:39:10 ↗ three visits from me and two of my board

1:39:13 ↗ members are passport presidents

1:39:17 ↗ that occurred at the providence

1:39:19 ↗ those meetings three of those meetings

1:39:21 ↗ occurred at providence point so we could

1:39:23 ↗ walk their property and actually enter

1:39:26 ↗ some of their buildings to help

1:39:27 ↗ visualize the concerns we went up to

1:39:29 ↗ some of the upper floors and were

1:39:31 ↗ looking out in the direction of where

1:39:33 ↗ the proposed school sites would be

1:39:36 ↗ we've also heard public input in various

1:39:38 ↗ forms since then including the community

1:39:40 ↗ conference environmental meeting and

1:39:42 ↗ during the super review process

1:39:45 ↗ we've heard the community's concerns and

1:39:47 ↗ those concerns have had a direct impact

1:39:50 ↗ on the proposed

1:39:52 ↗ design in december of 2019 during the

1:39:56 ↗ comprehensive plan and rezone pro

1:39:58 ↗ process

1:39:59 ↗ i sent a letter to the city council city

1:40:02 ↗ of issaquah council committing to

1:40:04 ↗ several measures in response to express

1:40:07 ↗ public comments regarding the district's

1:40:09 ↗ planned development of the property

1:40:12 ↗ we've made additional modifications and

1:40:15 ↗ commitments as we've listed to the

1:40:17 ↗ subsequent public as we listen to the

1:40:19 ↗ subsequent public input

1:40:22 ↗ these commitments have been difficult to

1:40:24 ↗ achieve on this site as design has

1:40:27 ↗ evolved but nonetheless

1:40:29 ↗ we've held firm in achieving all of

1:40:31 ↗ those commitments the the design team

1:40:34 ↗ will walk through these project

1:40:36 ↗ components and compromises in more

1:40:38 ↗ detail for you

1:40:41 ↗ we know that it's not easy to plan and

1:40:44 ↗ implement needed community

1:40:46 ↗ infrastructure and educational programs

1:40:50 ↗ however it is an obligation that we

1:40:52 ↗ share with the city of issaquah

1:40:54 ↗ as directed by the city's comprehensive

1:40:57 ↗ plan and one that i and our school board

1:41:00 ↗ members embrace fully for the benefit of

1:41:02 ↗ our district community

1:41:05 ↗ again we appreciate the development

1:41:08 ↗ commission's careful and thorough review

1:41:10 ↗ of this project

1:41:11 ↗ this concludes my remarks and now i'll

1:41:13 ↗ pass it back over to our design team and

1:41:16 ↗ thank you for this opportunity

1:41:24 ↗ todd salwan

1:41:26 ↗ or i guess it's it would be michael

1:41:28 ↗ davis next correct yes thanks tom

1:41:31 ↗ can everyone hear me okay

1:41:35 ↗ first off thank you for the opportunity

1:41:37 ↗ to present to you today i'm michael

1:41:39 ↗ davis i'm the design principal with

1:41:40 ↗ bassetti architects

1:41:42 ↗ from the start of this project our team

1:41:44 ↗ has been inspired by the natural beauty

1:41:47 ↗ of the greater issaquah and samamish

1:41:48 ↗ areas

1:41:49 ↗ from the development within the urban

1:41:51 ↗ core that transitions into the less

1:41:52 ↗ dense housing at its edges to the

1:41:54 ↗ wonderful parks forests and mountains

1:41:56 ↗ that surround define the area we want

1:41:59 ↗ our new school campus to reflect the

1:42:00 ↗ beauty of greater issaquah

1:42:03 ↗ through our project exploration we came

1:42:05 ↗ up with the concept of a school campus

1:42:07 ↗ as a park in the pacific northwest

1:42:08 ↗ cascades

1:42:10 ↗ to achieve this we needed to think of

1:42:12 ↗ the primary elements of the campus a

1:42:14 ↗ little differently

1:42:15 ↗ the entry sequence needed to reflect

1:42:17 ↗ that of entering a state park or driving

1:42:19 ↗ up to tiger mountain summit trailhead

1:42:22 ↗ similarly the parking lots would need to

1:42:23 ↗ be redefined as areas under a developing

1:42:25 ↗ tree canopy rather than a bearing

1:42:27 ↗ landscape dominated by asphalt

1:42:30 ↗ these are just a few examples of the

1:42:32 ↗ design moves that we would need that

1:42:33 ↗ would need to be done to change the

1:42:35 ↗ essence of a school campus into a park

1:42:38 ↗ next slide please

1:42:41 ↗ when we started looking into the history

1:42:43 ↗ of the surrounding area we started

1:42:45 ↗ seeing some additional themes that we

1:42:46 ↗ wanted to build upon

1:42:48 ↗ the area early on grew around the mining

1:42:50 ↗ industry

1:42:52 ↗ and transitioned largely to the logging

1:42:54 ↗ industry

1:42:55 ↗ large swaths of area have been logged

1:42:57 ↗ replanted and logged again

1:43:00 ↗ additionally built environments such as

1:43:01 ↗ providence heights college have come and

1:43:03 ↗ gone further changing the history the

1:43:05 ↗ landscape and nature of the area

1:43:08 ↗ a common theme that we were seeing was

1:43:10 ↗ the idea of regeneration and more

1:43:12 ↗ specifically that of a regenerating

1:43:14 ↗ forest

1:43:15 ↗ next slide please

1:43:19 ↗ when you look at pacific northwest

1:43:20 ↗ forest typologies there are four

1:43:22 ↗ specific areas that are prominent and

1:43:24 ↗ transition from one form to the other

1:43:26 ↗ through time

1:43:28 ↗ these are the images on the left the

1:43:29 ↗ clearings regenerating forests new

1:43:32 ↗ growths growth and existing forest

1:43:36 ↗ looking at aerial photography

1:43:38 ↗ photographs from our site spanning from

1:43:40 ↗ 1936 to 2018 you can see how it's

1:43:43 ↗ changed adapted and regenerated

1:43:45 ↗ this diagram represents the 1936 site

1:43:49 ↗ where there are remnants of logging and

1:43:51 ↗ areas that had recently been cleared

1:43:53 ↗ next slide please

1:43:56 ↗ in 2018 you can see the result of an

1:43:58 ↗ empty college campus with zones of new

1:44:00 ↗ growth in the areas that had been

1:44:02 ↗ previously clear-cut clear-cut

1:44:05 ↗ next slide

1:44:09 ↗ our proposed new site looks looks to

1:44:11 ↗ weave a new school campus and focus on

1:44:14 ↗ regenerating the site and creating a

1:44:15 ↗ park-like atmosphere that grows with

1:44:17 ↗ time

1:44:22 ↗ excuse me michael this is the clerk um

1:44:25 ↗ yes i've been asked to see if we could

1:44:27 ↗ expand your presentation at all visually

1:44:30 ↗ if that's possible todd

1:44:36 ↗ todd can you go to presentation mode

1:44:38 ↗ maybe

1:44:39 ↗ i thought it was in presentation mode

1:44:44 ↗ view mode

1:44:48 ↗ i think i can hide

1:44:55 ↗ i'm not sure where that button is

1:44:57 ↗ uh if you go to view

1:44:59 ↗ see here

1:45:04 ↗ maybe on the right hand side todd

1:45:08 ↗ [Music]

1:45:27 ↗ you may just want to zoom in on the

1:45:29 ↗ images if possible

1:45:32 ↗ yeah it's just going to cut off the

1:45:34 ↗ some of the text i can zoom in as you

1:45:36 ↗ start talking about stuff

1:45:38 ↗ if it's helpful this is the clerk i'm

1:45:40 ↗ being told the window view

1:45:42 ↗ might be of use um and again it uh

1:45:45 ↗ this was just a request so so please

1:45:48 ↗ proceed if it's not possible

1:45:57 ↗ i'm just going to move forward then todd

1:45:59 ↗ if you want to check under window tab

1:46:04 ↗ go

1:46:04 ↗ uh

1:46:07 ↗ uh presentation mode was under there oh

1:46:09 ↗ that works perfectly thank you

1:46:12 ↗ this is our current proposed site plan

1:46:14 ↗ for the campus

1:46:15 ↗ critical elements include a high school

1:46:17 ↗ a future elementary school a track and

1:46:20 ↗ athletic fields and and four tennis

1:46:22 ↗ courts

1:46:23 ↗ based on the size and complexity of the

1:46:25 ↗ site and our team's goals to create

1:46:27 ↗ generous site buffers other typical

1:46:29 ↗ program elements you would see in a

1:46:31 ↗ school campus such as practice soccer

1:46:33 ↗ fields

1:46:34 ↗ generous and generous softscape play

1:46:36 ↗ areas for elementary students have been

1:46:37 ↗ omitted

1:46:39 ↗ in addition to the regenerating force

1:46:41 ↗ concept

1:46:42 ↗ the site has also been developed around

1:46:44 ↗ a number of programmatic priorities

1:46:46 ↗ these include student safety and

1:46:47 ↗ security

1:46:48 ↗ indoor and outdoor educational

1:46:50 ↗ opportunities

1:46:51 ↗ proper school zoning and safe vehicular

1:46:54 ↗ and pedestrian circulation

1:46:56 ↗ specifically vehicle bus and pedestrian

1:46:59 ↗ circulation have been huge drivers of

1:47:01 ↗ the site's layout layout

1:47:03 ↗ to allow for proper queuing distances

1:47:05 ↗ and minimizing congestion of vehicles

1:47:07 ↗ and pedestrians the buildings and fields

1:47:10 ↗ have been strategically placed to meet

1:47:11 ↗ the goals of the district

1:47:14 ↗ primary access point is off 228th

1:47:17 ↗ it brings in visitors onto a tree-lined

1:47:19 ↗ campus boulevard that curves up the hill

1:47:22 ↗ that largely matches the existing grades

1:47:24 ↗ of the site

1:47:26 ↗ at the first intersection the campus

1:47:28 ↗ boulevard continues to the south to the

1:47:30 ↗ entry plaza of the high school with the

1:47:32 ↗ parking and tennis courts stepping down

1:47:34 ↗ the hill to the east

1:47:36 ↗ to the west the football field track and

1:47:39 ↗ athletic plaza separates the elementary

1:47:41 ↗ and high school buildings and allows for

1:47:42 ↗ minimized conflicts between the two

1:47:44 ↗ facilities

1:47:47 ↗ when students arrive on buses they move

1:47:49 ↗ through the campus boulevard to a bus

1:47:51 ↗ only zone that allows for safe drop off

1:47:54 ↗ for elementary students at the

1:47:56 ↗ heartscape play area and for high school

1:47:58 ↗ students at the south student entry

1:48:00 ↗ plaza

1:48:02 ↗ as i mentioned

1:48:03 ↗ uh next slide please

1:48:06 ↗ as i mentioned a moment ago

1:48:08 ↗ the site has a lot of complexity and has

1:48:10 ↗ shaped a good portion of our proposed

1:48:12 ↗ plan

1:48:13 ↗ for example there's a significant amount

1:48:15 ↗ of topography to our site there's over

1:48:17 ↗ 100 foot of grade change between the low

1:48:19 ↗ point at 228

1:48:21 ↗ and to the high point of the current

1:48:22 ↗ water tower

1:48:23 ↗ next slide

1:48:26 ↗ art site access is constrained based on

1:48:29 ↗ required intersection space intersection

1:48:31 ↗ spacing from 40th street

1:48:33 ↗ and the significant grades along 228 to

1:48:36 ↗ the south

1:48:37 ↗ next slide

1:48:41 ↗ finally tree retention requirements

1:48:42 ↗ limits where we can develop on site

1:48:45 ↗ we had to strategically place the

1:48:46 ↗ majority of our campus on existing

1:48:48 ↗ clearings and to order it in order to

1:48:50 ↗ achieve our attention targets

1:48:54 ↗ i'm going to pass it to todd

1:48:57 ↗ thanks michael um

1:49:02 ↗ so i'm going to start with going back to

1:49:04 ↗ kind of where we started on this project

1:49:06 ↗ and talk about the history a little bit

1:49:08 ↗ and how we got to where we are um

1:49:11 ↗ from a program standpoint some of those

1:49:13 ↗ things we've given up along the way so

1:49:15 ↗ on the left you'll see a site plan from

1:49:17 ↗ 2019 from the first pre-application

1:49:19 ↗ meeting we have with the city um this

1:49:22 ↗ had the code required buffers were

1:49:24 ↗ pushed up against the property line

1:49:26 ↗ making elevation differences between

1:49:29 ↗ uses um with open spaces um that we were

1:49:33 ↗ a lot

1:49:34 ↗ available to use uh

1:49:36 ↗ through working with the staff and when

1:49:38 ↗ we came and i guess talk to you guys

1:49:40 ↗ last time in 2020 at our community

1:49:43 ↗ conference

1:49:44 ↗ um we heard that trees were really

1:49:46 ↗ important and we needed you know push to

1:49:47 ↗ try to save more tree area so you'll see

1:49:49 ↗ on the right the site plan

1:49:51 ↗ creates significant additional buffers

1:49:54 ↗ um

1:49:55 ↗ but that didn't come at no cost that

1:49:57 ↗ that really had a lot of hiccups along

1:49:59 ↗ the way for us as a design team um you

1:50:02 ↗ heard ron talk about some of the program

1:50:04 ↗ losses and the costs that have gone up

1:50:06 ↗ along those ways um and so i'm going to

1:50:09 ↗ kind of talk about those specific pieces

1:50:10 ↗ along with the mitigation

1:50:12 ↗ uh for the project

1:50:16 ↗ so the first part i'm talking about is

1:50:17 ↗ the buffer so we we definitely heard

1:50:19 ↗ from all of the neighbors that the

1:50:20 ↗ buffers are really important and we need

1:50:23 ↗ to try to save as many existing trees as

1:50:25 ↗ possible as outlined in the city code

1:50:27 ↗ so we've done that by

1:50:30 ↗ pushing our project closer together

1:50:32 ↗ moving the elementary school closer to

1:50:34 ↗ 228 to create additional buffer along

1:50:37 ↗ the edges we've created retaining walls

1:50:39 ↗ at the end of edges of our proposed

1:50:41 ↗ improvements which make

1:50:43 ↗ um really hard edges but allows us to

1:50:45 ↗ save significant numbers of trees with

1:50:47 ↗ not grading in those buffer areas

1:50:52 ↗ the the buffers we are maintaining were

1:50:55 ↗ replanting the areas that were

1:50:57 ↗ previously disturbed there was a road

1:50:58 ↗ that ran

1:51:00 ↗ along this edge that christina had in

1:51:02 ↗ her slide we're gonna replant remove the

1:51:04 ↗ asphalt and replant that area

1:51:06 ↗ there's a portion of sticker bushes

1:51:08 ↗ we're going to remove there's some just

1:51:10 ↗ vacant spots in the buffer we're going

1:51:13 ↗ to replant all those that buffer will be

1:51:16 ↗ irrigated as part of the construction

1:51:19 ↗ project with temporary irrigation we've

1:51:22 ↗ chosen um

1:51:24 ↗ native vege vegetation to allow

1:51:29 ↗ something that won't need to be

1:51:30 ↗ irrigated forever but we need enough

1:51:31 ↗ irrigation to get it started and make

1:51:32 ↗ sure those plants

1:51:34 ↗ have a healthy life

1:51:36 ↗ the um

1:51:38 ↗ we've also proposed along the baseball

1:51:42 ↗ field we switched the elevations of the

1:51:44 ↗ baseball field from the last plan i had

1:51:46 ↗ up so that we have the outfield facing

1:51:49 ↗ the beltwood property and 228 that

1:51:51 ↗ allowed us to drop the retaining wall

1:51:52 ↗ heights slightly

1:51:54 ↗ and we're also providing a green wall

1:51:56 ↗ along the north side of bellwood to to

1:51:59 ↗ limit the view of that wall that they're

1:52:01 ↗ they'll they'll be seeing from their

1:52:03 ↗ property we're still exceeding far

1:52:05 ↗ exceeding the code required minimums of

1:52:07 ↗ seven foot setbacks we're we have an

1:52:09 ↗ average of 68 feet across our buffer

1:52:12 ↗ area

1:52:13 ↗ and that buffer will be in an easement

1:52:16 ↗ to be

1:52:17 ↗ maintained in perpetuity or property

1:52:25 ↗ some other reductions that we've had as

1:52:27 ↗ part of this process the elementary

1:52:29 ↗ school playground area

1:52:32 ↗ became smaller as we

1:52:34 ↗ gave up more property

1:52:36 ↗ we ended up with more walls not only on

1:52:38 ↗ the exterior of the site but also

1:52:40 ↗ internal as you start pushing

1:52:42 ↗ these flat spaces next to each other to

1:52:44 ↗ make up the 100 feet of gray difference

1:52:46 ↗ that michael mentioned we we have to

1:52:48 ↗ start stepping down the hill and so we

1:52:50 ↗ did that with a series of walls the

1:52:53 ↗ a number of the walls the tearing of the

1:52:54 ↗ walls was taken out as part of this

1:52:57 ↗ design process to again save additional

1:52:59 ↗ trees and cut down on some of those

1:53:00 ↗ areas

1:53:02 ↗ um

1:53:03 ↗ some other things we saw change was the

1:53:05 ↗ elementaries or the tennis courts we

1:53:07 ↗ originally had six tennis courts now we

1:53:10 ↗ have four so that's going to make it

1:53:11 ↗ really hard for the district to run

1:53:12 ↗ tournaments and things in the future um

1:53:15 ↗ and

1:53:16 ↗ so

1:53:18 ↗ the outfield for the baseball field is

1:53:21 ↗ 280 feet normally we shoot for about 320

1:53:25 ↗ for a high school baseball field um

1:53:28 ↗ so that's definitely a reduction in

1:53:30 ↗ program this site does not have any

1:53:33 ↗ practice fields which is something that

1:53:35 ↗ the district has at their other fields

1:53:37 ↗ in the area

1:53:38 ↗ or also we do have portables as required

1:53:42 ↗ by the um

1:53:44 ↗ the state for

1:53:46 ↗ programming of an elementary school but

1:53:48 ↗ we don't have area to expand that

1:53:49 ↗ elementary school in the future that was

1:53:51 ↗ something we lost as part of

1:53:53 ↗ making the buffers bigger

1:53:57 ↗ so the next thing i want to talk through

1:53:59 ↗ is degrading a little bit so michael

1:54:01 ↗ mentioned we had 100 feet of elevation

1:54:02 ↗ difference

1:54:05 ↗ trying to take a lot of flat surface

1:54:07 ↗ areas and access them from a fire

1:54:10 ↗ constraint we have road constraints and

1:54:12 ↗ ada constraints um that we're allowed to

1:54:15 ↗ do it it becomes really difficult to

1:54:18 ↗ to slope between those facilities which

1:54:20 ↗ was driving those walls um and trying to

1:54:23 ↗ balance earthwork on this site so we're

1:54:25 ↗ not hauling a whole bunch of dirt to a

1:54:27 ↗ neighboring facility as something that

1:54:30 ↗ we've definitely worked through

1:54:35 ↗ as part of our project we'll come back

1:54:37 ↗ to the frontage improvement piece

1:54:39 ↗ towards the end of marnie i'll talk

1:54:41 ↗ about kind of the

1:54:42 ↗ big picture but

1:54:44 ↗ our improvements along 228 limited where

1:54:47 ↗ we could save trees um

1:54:50 ↗ along that edge so the

1:54:52 ↗ the required furniture improvement cut

1:54:54 ↗ into that slope and as a result

1:54:57 ↗ has a reduction in trees that they were

1:54:59 ↗ working through

1:55:03 ↗ so this is our proposed site plan

1:55:06 ↗ um

1:55:09 ↗ christina noted that we're saving an

1:55:11 ↗ existing wetland in this location we

1:55:13 ↗ previously

1:55:17 ↗ mitigated wetland sea

1:55:18 ↗ which we are proposing to fill

1:55:22 ↗ on the edge of the site

1:55:27 ↗ so i wanted to talk through the storm

1:55:29 ↗ water piece that christina mentioned

1:55:31 ↗ that we were going to get into in detail

1:55:33 ↗ so i'm going to start from a downstream

1:55:35 ↗ analysis perspective where does the

1:55:36 ↗ water go

1:55:38 ↗ and then we'll get into what our

1:55:39 ↗ proposed improvements

1:55:40 ↗ uh along the way are and how

1:55:43 ↗ we're exceeding the code requirements so

1:55:46 ↗ our site is on the upper right portion

1:55:48 ↗ of the screen

1:55:49 ↗ we

1:55:50 ↗ these blue lines are where we discharge

1:55:52 ↗ from the site we've specifically zoomed

1:55:54 ↗ into the south side because it's fairly

1:55:56 ↗ interesting on the next slide i'll show

1:55:58 ↗ what happens from the north but

1:56:00 ↗ so we discharged it three different

1:56:02 ↗ downstreams from this portion so we have

1:56:04 ↗ a portion of our site the elementary

1:56:06 ↗ school sits about right here

1:56:07 ↗ that goes to the north

1:56:09 ↗ and out we have a portion that goes

1:56:11 ↗ directly west

1:56:13 ↗ down and then

1:56:14 ↗ two portions that go to the south so we

1:56:17 ↗ south through providence point out to

1:56:20 ↗ 43rd and then a portion of our corner of

1:56:23 ↗ our site goes directly to 43rd and down

1:56:25 ↗ so these two downstreams converge within

1:56:28 ↗ the quarter mile therefore consider one

1:56:30 ↗ drainage basin

1:56:33 ↗ for our next site the red

1:56:35 ↗ line on this is

1:56:39 ↗ laughing jacobs creek so we discharge i

1:56:43 ↗ noted on the last one we're coming we

1:56:45 ↗ have a portion of our site that comes

1:56:46 ↗ here portion here portion here the

1:56:49 ↗ portion of the north goes through this

1:56:51 ↗ development and ends up at laughing

1:56:53 ↗ jacob's creek as well so all of our

1:56:55 ↗ water ends up laughing jacob's creek

1:56:57 ↗ all at different locations and it's

1:56:59 ↗ really important from a stormwater

1:57:00 ↗ standpoint not to take water from one

1:57:02 ↗ area put it in a different one and

1:57:04 ↗ increase velocities and scouring and all

1:57:06 ↗ those pieces

1:57:08 ↗ throughout the process we've met with

1:57:10 ↗ the kokanee group um

1:57:12 ↗ just discussed our project and and what

1:57:14 ↗ impacts we could potentially have um as

1:57:17 ↗ a hope of mitigating those things and we

1:57:19 ↗ believe we've done that

1:57:23 ↗ so in our historic condition we have

1:57:25 ↗ water that discharges towards providence

1:57:27 ↗ point

1:57:29 ↗ all of this basin discharges that

1:57:32 ↗ direction the dark blue is impervious

1:57:34 ↗ surface that when the college campus was

1:57:36 ↗ constructed discharged that direction

1:57:39 ↗ the lighter green surface

1:57:41 ↗ is

1:57:43 ↗ landscaped and forested areas that drain

1:57:46 ↗ that direction

1:57:48 ↗ in our proposal

1:57:51 ↗ we're immediate we're matching the

1:57:53 ↗ historic runoff from those areas as

1:57:56 ↗ required by code so we are discharging

1:57:59 ↗ the buffer itself to

1:58:01 ↗ its existing condition and then two

1:58:03 ↗ portions of the elementary school out

1:58:06 ↗ that direction

1:58:08 ↗ all of the red areas being redirected

1:58:10 ↗ out to 228th

1:58:13 ↗ and around providence point

1:58:15 ↗ in the

1:58:17 ↗ conveyance system that was recently

1:58:19 ↗ constructed

1:58:20 ↗ with the cities project

1:58:27 ↗ so this this map shows kind of how we're

1:58:28 ↗ doing that so we have a series

1:58:31 ↗ of

1:58:32 ↗ detention systems that are located

1:58:34 ↗ throughout the site

1:58:35 ↗ the the idea is try to

1:58:37 ↗ deal with the water as close to where it

1:58:39 ↗ falls as possible it makes the cheapest

1:58:42 ↗ option for the school district it also

1:58:43 ↗ makes it so if you had

1:58:45 ↗ maintenance issues you're not dealing

1:58:46 ↗ with the entire storm water for the

1:58:48 ↗ entire site in one spot so

1:58:52 ↗ these two blue systems discharge to the

1:58:54 ↗ providence point area so this

1:58:57 ↗ to the north to that previous map if you

1:58:59 ↗ can remember that wrapped around and

1:59:01 ↗ down

1:59:02 ↗ this system just below it discharges

1:59:05 ↗ directly to the west

1:59:07 ↗ and now

1:59:09 ↗ all three of these red systems

1:59:12 ↗ discharge out to 228th

1:59:15 ↗ across and these two green sys three

1:59:18 ↗ green systems the north green system is

1:59:20 ↗ actually the system for the improvements

1:59:22 ↗ in 228

1:59:24 ↗ discharge to the drainage there's an

1:59:26 ↗ existing drainage channel that goes

1:59:29 ↗ under 228 and down through that

1:59:31 ↗ development it's in an easement and

1:59:33 ↗ riprap line

1:59:37 ↗ this map i think does a really good job

1:59:39 ↗ of explaining what we're doing from

1:59:42 ↗ from a stormwater standpoint so this

1:59:44 ↗ site was previously developed it has

1:59:46 ↗ some historical runoff that it's had

1:59:48 ↗ since the 50s since the college was

1:59:50 ↗ constructed so

1:59:52 ↗ this first piece of this table is the

1:59:55 ↗ runoff rates for individual storm events

2:00:01 ↗ from the existing site

2:00:03 ↗ the next column is the pre-developed or

2:00:06 ↗ forested rate from the site that'd be

2:00:08 ↗ the code required

2:00:10 ↗ numbers that we're following so

2:00:12 ↗ for the 2-year 5 10 15 or 5

2:00:16 ↗ 25 50 and 100 year storm events

2:00:19 ↗ which are the code required storm events

2:00:22 ↗ we look at so

2:00:23 ↗ the next one is our developed condition

2:00:25 ↗ of what we actually release at

2:00:28 ↗ and you'll see we have a significant

2:00:29 ↗ reduction from the historical level

2:00:32 ↗ which you would expect we had a lot of

2:00:33 ↗ runoff when the site was originally

2:00:35 ↗ developed we're going to take it back to

2:00:36 ↗ a forest air conditioner we're going to

2:00:37 ↗ significantly reduce the stormwater

2:00:40 ↗ coming off this site

2:00:42 ↗ the final piece you'll

2:00:44 ↗ this column is the reductions for what

2:00:46 ↗ the pre-developed would be and that

2:00:48 ↗ would be the forested condition so by

2:00:49 ↗ code we were below what would be allowed

2:00:52 ↗ by code from a stormwater standpoint

2:00:55 ↗ this graph below summarizes this so the

2:00:57 ↗ blue line is the historical

2:01:01 ↗ rates the orange is what would be

2:01:03 ↗ allowed by code and the gray is what

2:01:07 ↗ we're proposing to discharge

2:01:09 ↗ um

2:01:10 ↗ a lot of this has to do with the

2:01:13 ↗ evolution of codes over the last 20

2:01:15 ↗ years stormwater is going to come a

2:01:16 ↗ really long ways

2:01:18 ↗ from a code standpoint and how we model

2:01:20 ↗ it and understanding what's actually

2:01:22 ↗ going to happen on a site

2:01:24 ↗ and as a result

2:01:26 ↗ we're going to have the cleanest storm

2:01:27 ↗ water in this basin because this is the

2:01:29 ↗ newest technology that we can use for

2:01:31 ↗ this site

2:01:33 ↗ and you know

2:01:35 ↗ we really believe that our

2:01:37 ↗ system is going to reduce flows to

2:01:40 ↗ laughing jacobs we're going to see

2:01:43 ↗ a reduction in velocities

2:01:45 ↗ leaving our site and as a result

2:01:47 ↗ there'll be less scouring and

2:01:50 ↗ erosion in

2:01:52 ↗ the creek at those discharge locations

2:01:59 ↗ the next thing i wanted to talk about

2:02:00 ↗ was the elementary school phase

2:02:03 ↗ so the

2:02:05 ↗ first

2:02:06 ↗ discussion of why we're phasing the site

2:02:08 ↗ so the elementary schools site as

2:02:10 ↗ currently designed with all of the

2:02:12 ↗ elevation differences on the site is a

2:02:14 ↗ film so we're cutting the top of this

2:02:17 ↗ hillside putting the material where the

2:02:20 ↗ elementary school ends up being so if we

2:02:22 ↗ don't build the elementary school we

2:02:24 ↗ have about 20 000 yards of dirt that we

2:02:27 ↗ would have to find a home for

2:02:28 ↗ that's approximately 800 truck and

2:02:31 ↗ trailers leaving our site

2:02:34 ↗ when the elementary school were

2:02:35 ↗ constructed in the future we would have

2:02:37 ↗ to go find dirt to refill that site and

2:02:40 ↗ make it usable which would be importing

2:02:43 ↗ that same amount of dirt which would be

2:02:46 ↗ not only an economic problem for the

2:02:48 ↗ school district to pay to discharge to

2:02:50 ↗ get rid of the dirt and then pay to get

2:02:52 ↗ neuter

2:02:53 ↗ it's also an environmental impact from

2:02:55 ↗ trucking and all the other pieces that

2:02:57 ↗ would happen to make that work so

2:02:59 ↗ we do think from an environmental

2:03:00 ↗ standpoint filling the elementary school

2:03:02 ↗ site now building the retaining walls

2:03:05 ↗ getting the buffers around those

2:03:07 ↗ system completed now is the right thing

2:03:10 ↗ to do we're going to take that to

2:03:12 ↗ subgrade we're going to

2:03:14 ↗ um

2:03:19 ↗ hydroseed the entire area upon

2:03:21 ↗ stabilization we we need to hydroseed

2:03:24 ↗ and stabilize it so that we're not out

2:03:27 ↗ having to check on it on a daily basis

2:03:29 ↗ so we'll we'll be monitoring it and all

2:03:31 ↗ the things we need to do but the

2:03:33 ↗ more vegetation we get to grow on this

2:03:35 ↗ site

2:03:35 ↗ in the interim until it actually gets

2:03:37 ↗ constructed the better there will be

2:03:38 ↗ some stockpiling of materials to fill in

2:03:41 ↗ the temporary ponds and things as part

2:03:43 ↗ of construction

2:03:45 ↗ one of the questions that was asked to

2:03:47 ↗ the city was the

2:03:51 ↗ stockpile of materials and what happened

2:03:53 ↗ if the permit expired i think our our

2:03:55 ↗ approach would be that stockpile

2:03:56 ↗ materials would go away if

2:03:59 ↗ um

2:04:00 ↗ if that was needed or if the elementary

2:04:03 ↗ school wasn't

2:04:04 ↗ built in the time frame outline

2:04:07 ↗ the

2:04:08 ↗ the site will include temporary

2:04:09 ↗ stormwater

2:04:11 ↗ um discharges as shown on that previous

2:04:14 ↗ map so we're going to build

2:04:15 ↗ because we don't want to go back in the

2:04:17 ↗ buffer we're going to build all the

2:04:18 ↗ individual

2:04:19 ↗ discharge pipes

2:04:22 ↗ away from our site so we'll the

2:04:24 ↗ temporary ponds will connect to those

2:04:25 ↗ they'll use the ultimate discharge

2:04:28 ↗ uh

2:04:29 ↗ control structures to make sure that

2:04:31 ↗ we're matching the allowable runoff

2:04:32 ↗ rates

2:04:38 ↗ another thing we've heard from the

2:04:40 ↗ neighbors was the the lead contamination

2:04:42 ↗ under the water tank

2:04:44 ↗ and it's something that we've we've

2:04:46 ↗ studied we've

2:04:47 ↗ extensively studied trying to to verify

2:04:50 ↗ what the right amount of dirt to strip

2:04:51 ↗ out of there is

2:04:53 ↗ um

2:04:54 ↗ so where we ended up on a sepa

2:04:55 ↗ mitigation measure is we're going to

2:04:58 ↗ stockpile

2:05:00 ↗ remove the material under the

2:05:02 ↗ water tank we're going to stockpile that

2:05:03 ↗ material and test it verify what we need

2:05:07 ↗ to do to get rid of it we'll get rid of

2:05:08 ↗ that material

2:05:09 ↗ once that material is is removed we're

2:05:12 ↗ also going to test the subgrade under it

2:05:14 ↗ and make sure we got it all if we don't

2:05:16 ↗ get all of

2:05:17 ↗ the

2:05:18 ↗ um lead we're going to keep stripping

2:05:21 ↗ material until we have a clean site

2:05:23 ↗ we're going to submit to ecology for

2:05:26 ↗ no further action letter which basically

2:05:28 ↗ says we have a clean site obviously the

2:05:30 ↗ school district is

2:05:32 ↗ not going to cut corners we're trying to

2:05:35 ↗ educate students and keep them safe so

2:05:38 ↗ um making sure that we get the site

2:05:40 ↗ completely cleaned and don't have any

2:05:42 ↗ outstanding issues

2:05:44 ↗ really desirable

2:05:47 ↗ the uh the structured parking christina

2:05:49 ↗ mentioned we were doing uh a shared

2:05:51 ↗ parking agreement between the two sites

2:05:53 ↗ so each individual facility has been

2:05:55 ↗ designed so that on a daily basis it

2:05:58 ↗ meets the requirements of parking for

2:06:01 ↗ large events either at the elementary

2:06:03 ↗ school or at the high school we're going

2:06:04 ↗ to flexibly park between those two two

2:06:07 ↗ facilities and the district is has an

2:06:09 ↗ operational plan to make sure they don't

2:06:11 ↗ schedule two events at the same time and

2:06:13 ↗ cause a parking issue for themselves

2:06:16 ↗ the

2:06:18 ↗ prior to the elementary school being

2:06:19 ↗ built we have additional temporary

2:06:21 ↗ parking available in the bus loops that

2:06:23 ↗ we haven't counted so we we meet the

2:06:25 ↗ parking requirements even without the

2:06:27 ↗ elementary school parking being

2:06:29 ↗ constructed in this first phase

2:06:40 ↗ i'm going to turn it over to marnie to

2:06:42 ↗ talk about our specific

2:06:44 ↗ traffic improvements

2:06:50 ↗ good evening everyone i am marnie hefron

2:06:53 ↗ i am the principal and founder of efron

2:06:56 ↗ transportation

2:06:58 ↗ we are traffic engineering and

2:07:00 ↗ transportation planning experts and have

2:07:03 ↗ been doing this this this type of work

2:07:05 ↗ for school projects for 35 years

2:07:10 ↗ so before i i get into my presentation i

2:07:13 ↗ do want to note one correction uh

2:07:16 ↗ for both the city as well as the

2:07:19 ↗ the development commission and that is

2:07:22 ↗ a reference on page 72 of this document

2:07:26 ↗ it's uh

2:07:27 ↗ section um

2:07:29 ↗ 7a 13 where the traffic summary is and

2:07:33 ↗ it has a list of

2:07:35 ↗ references that were relied upon for

2:07:37 ↗ this and the very first bullet

2:07:40 ↗ in that list of references actually

2:07:42 ↗ refers to a report that has been

2:07:44 ↗ superseded

2:07:45 ↗ the revised report it's the

2:07:48 ↗ transportation technical report and it

2:07:50 ↗ has been revised and the date of that

2:07:52 ↗ report is february 16 2021

2:07:57 ↗ it is it has been submitted in fact it's

2:08:00 ↗ referenced later on in the city's

2:08:01 ↗ transportation um

2:08:04 ↗ conditions so i know that it's part of

2:08:06 ↗ the package so we'll work with the city

2:08:08 ↗ to make sure that that reference is

2:08:10 ↗ updated and that their attachments are

2:08:12 ↗ pointing to that correct report

2:08:16 ↗ a little bit of context on the

2:08:18 ↗ transportation it was noted earlier that

2:08:21 ↗ the site

2:08:22 ↗ is in the city of issaquah but the

2:08:24 ↗ fronted street 228th is actually within

2:08:27 ↗ the city of samamish's jurisdiction

2:08:30 ↗ so we have as part of our work done

2:08:33 ↗ extensive coordination with the city of

2:08:35 ↗ sammamish related to

2:08:38 ↗ the

2:08:39 ↗ traffic operations as well as the design

2:08:41 ↗ of this improvement

2:08:44 ↗ i'll get into that a little bit further

2:08:46 ↗ a couple of things about the the school

2:08:49 ↗ site although we do have two schools on

2:08:51 ↗ this site

2:08:52 ↗ the bell schedules are such that the

2:08:55 ↗ traffic does not coincide when you're

2:08:58 ↗ arriving and departing

2:09:00 ↗ the high school traffic will come first

2:09:02 ↗ in the morning followed by the

2:09:03 ↗ elementary school and then on that in

2:09:05 ↗ the afternoon they also leave at

2:09:07 ↗ different times of day

2:09:09 ↗ the whole internal circulation system

2:09:11 ↗ that todd has shown you on prior plans

2:09:14 ↗ has all been designed to make sure that

2:09:17 ↗ we to

2:09:19 ↗ as much as we can we separate pedestrian

2:09:22 ↗ and

2:09:24 ↗ uh vehicle conflict points we've

2:09:27 ↗ intentionally set up uh

2:09:29 ↗ counter-clockwise loops um that then

2:09:32 ↗ allow you to

2:09:34 ↗ kind of minimize those conflicts

2:09:37 ↗ and then as todd just alluded the

2:09:39 ↗ parking on the site is is shared when

2:09:42 ↗ you need

2:09:43 ↗ additional parking for events so the

2:09:45 ↗ co-location actually

2:09:48 ↗ works very well for a transportation

2:09:50 ↗ paradigm

2:09:53 ↗ i'll go through

2:09:55 ↗ some of the major conditions todd has

2:09:57 ↗ talked about an event management plan

2:10:00 ↗ those are prescribed in conditions 15

2:10:03 ↗ and 16

2:10:04 ↗ and the intent of those plans is to make

2:10:06 ↗ sure that the schools coordinate their

2:10:08 ↗ event schedules they don't have large

2:10:11 ↗ events that occur on the same night and

2:10:14 ↗ there will also be provisions that if

2:10:16 ↗ they have the very very large all school

2:10:19 ↗ events

2:10:20 ↗ that there are measures that are taken

2:10:22 ↗ to make sure that we don't have

2:10:23 ↗ overspill parking

2:10:26 ↗ condition 17 is a transportation

2:10:29 ↗ management plan and that's where

2:10:31 ↗ we have um school operation policies the

2:10:34 ↗ encouragement of

2:10:36 ↗ of students and

2:10:38 ↗ to to ride buses or to carpool to school

2:10:42 ↗ it also is where all of the directives

2:10:44 ↗ that we provide to parents on how they

2:10:46 ↗ should drive and

2:10:48 ↗ pick up and do the load unload on this

2:10:51 ↗ site

2:10:53 ↗ and then there will also be a monitoring

2:10:55 ↗ provision

2:10:57 ↗ to

2:10:58 ↗ to monitor

2:10:59 ↗ traffic after the school opens

2:11:02 ↗ and there is another correction i

2:11:04 ↗ request to make to the monitoring and

2:11:06 ↗ that would be the

2:11:08 ↗ section f or x of the staff report

2:11:12 ↗ and it's the um

2:11:14 ↗ let me just find it i believe it's

2:11:16 ↗ it's a condition number 17.

2:11:35 ↗ yes i believe it's condition number 17

2:11:39 ↗ um

2:11:40 ↗ or is it

2:11:42 ↗ is it 18 todd where's the

2:11:46 ↗ the monitoring in here

2:11:48 ↗ believe it's 18.

2:11:50 ↗ i think it's 18. there's some leftover

2:11:52 ↗ text that we believe was associated with

2:11:55 ↗ the middle school 6 project the

2:11:57 ↗ monitoring should be done for one

2:11:59 ↗ intersection which is the single access

2:12:01 ↗ point onto 228th

2:12:03 ↗ and since it's in the city of sammamish

2:12:06 ↗ the threshold should be a level of

2:12:07 ↗ service e and not a level of service d

2:12:10 ↗ so we'll also work with the city to have

2:12:12 ↗ that correction made

2:12:15 ↗ so here is the the frontage improvement

2:12:18 ↗ along 228th we call it a frontage

2:12:21 ↗ improvement but this is much more than

2:12:23 ↗ that it is a full roadway improvement

2:12:26 ↗ both sides of the center line

2:12:29 ↗ it also includes

2:12:32 ↗ sidewalks on both sides of 228th between

2:12:36 ↗ the side driveway and 40th

2:12:38 ↗ todd if you can use your your mouse to

2:12:41 ↗ show that where 40th is at the north end

2:12:45 ↗ that's

2:12:46 ↗ um beyond the north edge of the school

2:12:50 ↗ and all the way down to

2:12:52 ↗ where the widening has just occurred at

2:12:54 ↗ providence point

2:12:56 ↗ so this is about a 1700 foot section of

2:13:00 ↗ road improvement with sidewalks

2:13:03 ↗ it will be widened from its current

2:13:05 ↗ two-lane configuration out to four lanes

2:13:08 ↗ and then

2:13:09 ↗ at the site driveway there's an extra

2:13:13 ↗ dual northbound left turn lane so that

2:13:16 ↗ school traffic can turn left into the

2:13:18 ↗ site

2:13:19 ↗ and a southbound right turn lane

2:13:22 ↗ to get into the site

2:13:24 ↗ and that intersection will also be

2:13:27 ↗ signalized with full pedestrian

2:13:29 ↗ signalized crossings

2:13:32 ↗ and our analysis which considers kind of

2:13:35 ↗ the peak 20 minutes when high school and

2:13:38 ↗ elementary school are arriving and

2:13:40 ↗ departing

2:13:42 ↗ this intersection operates at a very

2:13:44 ↗ good level of service we call it level

2:13:46 ↗ of service b

2:13:47 ↗ which is on a same as a school grade a

2:13:50 ↗ through f b is very good

2:13:52 ↗ and at times when the school traffic

2:13:55 ↗ isn't there so during commuter peak

2:13:56 ↗ hours it operates even better

2:13:59 ↗ so

2:14:00 ↗ um

2:14:01 ↗ let's get some some more details on this

2:14:05 ↗ you have a couple of

2:14:12 ↗ there we go there's the cross section

2:14:14 ↗ uh you can see that in addition at the

2:14:17 ↗ edges there's five foot um shoulder

2:14:20 ↗ areas for a bike lane as well

2:14:22 ↗ so this is is really a full urban cross

2:14:26 ↗ section that's all along the sites

2:14:28 ↗ frontage next

2:14:30 ↗ next picture

2:14:36 ↗ this is a diagram of the intersection at

2:14:40 ↗ 40th street and 228th the city of

2:14:43 ↗ samamish was

2:14:46 ↗ did not want to have this intersection

2:14:48 ↗ signalized with the fear that a signal

2:14:50 ↗ would draw more traffic through that

2:14:52 ↗ local residential neighborhood

2:14:54 ↗ so we worked very closely with them to

2:14:57 ↗ design a configuration that would both

2:15:00 ↗ meet their level of service requirements

2:15:02 ↗ as well as

2:15:06 ↗ keep that that cut through traffic um at

2:15:09 ↗ a minimum

2:15:10 ↗ this is where

2:15:11 ↗ the widened section in front of the

2:15:13 ↗ school will then

2:15:15 ↗ transition back to

2:15:17 ↗ the existing roadway configuration until

2:15:20 ↗ at some future date

2:15:22 ↗ the city of samamish does have plans to

2:15:24 ↗ widen that

2:15:27 ↗ we do want to make clear that these

2:15:29 ↗ plans have been um

2:15:31 ↗ very closely coordinated with the city

2:15:33 ↗ of samamish and the full set has been

2:15:35 ↗ submitted to them for review and that

2:15:38 ↗ review is ongoing

2:15:42 ↗ and todd do you have a close-up of the

2:15:45 ↗ the driveway as well

2:15:51 ↗ there is a close-up again this is a

2:15:54 ↗ a

2:15:56 ↗ very large it would be a

2:15:59 ↗ very

2:16:00 ↗ good operation

2:16:02 ↗ during school as well as commuter peak

2:16:05 ↗ periods

2:16:07 ↗ so as we said we've gone through

2:16:10 ↗ a lot of very detailed operations

2:16:13 ↗ analysis we've worked with the city to

2:16:16 ↗ look at

2:16:17 ↗ different operations paradigms different

2:16:19 ↗ attendance and enrollment capture areas

2:16:22 ↗ to make sure that this intersection has

2:16:24 ↗ resiliency for the future

2:16:27 ↗ and is our belief that this will operate

2:16:29 ↗ much better in the future with the

2:16:30 ↗ project than it does

2:16:32 ↗ um under current conditions

2:16:35 ↗ so todd back to you

2:16:38 ↗ thanks marnie um i think one thing i

2:16:40 ↗ want to make sure we touch on that it's

2:16:42 ↗ that's been quite the process to to get

2:16:45 ↗ transportation and everyone to sit in a

2:16:47 ↗ room and

2:16:48 ↗ come to an agreement on what those

2:16:50 ↗ improvements needed to look like uh it

2:16:52 ↗ is something we we got through during

2:16:54 ↗ the pandemic we made a formal submittal

2:16:56 ↗ october of 2021 um we're expecting

2:16:59 ↗ comments from the city of samantha any

2:17:01 ↗ day on

2:17:02 ↗ the first round of their reviews as part

2:17:05 ↗ of that

2:17:08 ↗ um a couple other things i wanted to

2:17:10 ↗ talk about the

2:17:11 ↗ elementary school

2:17:14 ↗ site

2:17:16 ↗ so condition 11 of the staff report

2:17:19 ↗ requires removal of the stockpile

2:17:22 ↗ material so i mentioned that we were

2:17:24 ↗ going to voluntarily do that that's

2:17:25 ↗ actually a condition outlined not just

2:17:28 ↗ us voluntarily doing that but the city

2:17:30 ↗ has conditioned us to that effect as

2:17:32 ↗ well

2:17:34 ↗ and then condition two incorporates all

2:17:36 ↗ of the um

2:17:39 ↗ the sipa conditions that the school

2:17:41 ↗ district put on themselves so i think

2:17:43 ↗ that's important to note that not only

2:17:45 ↗ did the school district come up with

2:17:47 ↗ you know through the process of what

2:17:49 ↗ that those conditions need to be they

2:17:51 ↗ they're

2:17:53 ↗ the city is going to help us make sure

2:17:54 ↗ that we enforce all of those so um

2:17:57 ↗ really

2:17:58 ↗ excited to see that as part of the

2:18:00 ↗ process the

2:18:01 ↗ the other piece the l the elementary

2:18:03 ↗ school site will have utilities

2:18:04 ↗ constructed through it so there's a

2:18:05 ↗ water and a sewer line that that go

2:18:08 ↗ through that to create loops

2:18:10 ↗ uh from the neighboring system that will

2:18:12 ↗ serve the school so if if we didn't fill

2:18:15 ↗ that site um

2:18:17 ↗ those utilities would be put in and

2:18:18 ↗ ripped out and potentially re

2:18:20 ↗ reinstalled so

2:18:22 ↗ there's

2:18:23 ↗ there's some other reasons beyond just

2:18:25 ↗ the dirt work piece of needing to fill

2:18:27 ↗ that site um

2:18:30 ↗ the the other piece i wanted to talk

2:18:32 ↗ about a little bit was the the noise

2:18:34 ↗ from the site so we do have a separate

2:18:36 ↗ condition that that we're going to

2:18:38 ↗ monitor noise on the staff report has a

2:18:41 ↗ similar condition that we're going to go

2:18:42 ↗ do that

2:18:44 ↗ the code requirements for daytime

2:18:47 ↗ um sound levels of 57 decibels at the

2:18:50 ↗ property line is what we're going to

2:18:51 ↗ limit our sound system to we're going to

2:18:53 ↗ turn it off at 10 pm is what we've

2:18:55 ↗ agreed to in our super conditions

2:18:58 ↗ we'd also have night time

2:19:02 ↗ sound levels but with that system turned

2:19:04 ↗ off we don't believe we'll be anywhere

2:19:05 ↗ near that and the school operating past

2:19:08 ↗ 10 p.m

2:19:09 ↗ other than a handful of times if you

2:19:11 ↗ know an extended football game or

2:19:13 ↗ something we don't expect so

2:19:15 ↗ um

2:19:17 ↗ not not seeing that that would be an

2:19:18 ↗ issue so uh with that i really thank you

2:19:21 ↗ guys for your time the uh really happy

2:19:24 ↗ to have gotten this far it's been a long

2:19:25 ↗ process like i mentioned we started with

2:19:27 ↗ a pre-application in 2019 and

2:19:30 ↗ came and saw you guys in 2020 so

2:19:33 ↗ excited to see this finally get to the

2:19:35 ↗ point where we can talk about what it's

2:19:36 ↗ going to take to get it built so thank

2:19:38 ↗ you and look forward to your questions

2:19:42 ↗ thank you todd and the rest of the team

2:19:44 ↗ from the

2:19:46 ↗ school district

2:19:47 ↗ um

2:19:48 ↗ so this is an opportunity for commission

2:19:50 ↗ members to ask questions

2:19:52 ↗ um of the school district team so if

2:19:55 ↗ you'll put in the chat

2:19:57 ↗ question if you have questions

2:19:59 ↗ um and then i'll call on you and we can

2:20:03 ↗ proceed that way anybody have a question

2:20:05 ↗ for the district team

2:20:22 ↗ so i've got one question that i'll get

2:20:24 ↗ started uh here give people a chance to

2:20:27 ↗ get their thoughts straight

2:20:30 ↗ it is related to the traffic

2:20:32 ↗ and

2:20:34 ↗ specifically the study and i didn't have

2:20:37 ↗ a chance to go through all the details

2:20:38 ↗ of the traffic study i did look at it

2:20:40 ↗ and that is related to the southeast

2:20:42 ↗ 40th street

2:20:44 ↗ um and you were talking about um

2:20:47 ↗ you know access based on the

2:20:49 ↗ reconfiguration of a 100 or 228

2:20:52 ↗ improving access but

2:20:54 ↗ curious about the study and and what it

2:20:57 ↗ anticipates for cut through traffic

2:20:59 ↗ because i know that is a concern from

2:21:01 ↗ some in the neighborhood

2:21:03 ↗ served by southeast support history

2:21:05 ↗ so what would be anticipated

2:21:08 ↗ um in the way of traffic impacts and

2:21:09 ↗ what mitigation

2:21:11 ↗ would address that concern

2:21:14 ↗ if you could be a little more specific

2:21:15 ↗ about that maybe uh miss heffron

2:21:19 ↗ so we did uh quite a few studies about

2:21:23 ↗ the potential for cut through

2:21:25 ↗ that neighborhood is part of the

2:21:27 ↗ attendance area for the high school

2:21:31 ↗ um

2:21:32 ↗ there are currently buses that are

2:21:35 ↗ already going and picking up students

2:21:37 ↗ within that neighborhood and and uh

2:21:39 ↗ delivering them out through the 228th

2:21:43 ↗ intersection so that was some of the the

2:21:45 ↗ questions that we got from the city of

2:21:46 ↗ samamish like will we have more buses

2:21:48 ↗ going to that neighborhood and the

2:21:50 ↗ answer is no

2:21:52 ↗ uh

2:21:52 ↗ but concerned that if it got too easy to

2:21:56 ↗ go through 40th and make that left turn

2:21:59 ↗ onto 228 that folks might it might

2:22:02 ↗ attract more traffic that's not school

2:22:04 ↗ related through that intersection

2:22:07 ↗ so the configuration that we came up

2:22:09 ↗ with is um is a concept that we call a

2:22:13 ↗ flying t

2:22:15 ↗ where and you see this

2:22:18 ↗ more and more often if you're out

2:22:19 ↗ driving around you've seen other

2:22:21 ↗ intersections configured like this where

2:22:23 ↗ the center turn lane is actually

2:22:25 ↗ partitioned off

2:22:27 ↗ from the the through traffic so that you

2:22:30 ↗ only really have to get

2:22:32 ↗ a gap in one direction of traffic to

2:22:34 ↗ make your left turn

2:22:36 ↗ so it will be easier to make that left

2:22:39 ↗ turn compared to

2:22:41 ↗ the current configuration where you need

2:22:43 ↗ to get

2:22:44 ↗ a gap in both directions of traffic

2:22:47 ↗ but we don't think that it'll be enough

2:22:49 ↗ of an advantage to really attract cut

2:22:51 ↗ through traffic through that

2:22:52 ↗ neighborhood

2:22:55 ↗ thank you

2:22:56 ↗ uh that's also a really quick follow-up

2:22:58 ↗ so um i in the diagram that you showed

2:23:01 ↗ this so you just described a there's a

2:23:03 ↗ physical barrier when you're making that

2:23:05 ↗ left-hand turn out of southeast 40th

2:23:08 ↗ between the southbound traffic on 228

2:23:12 ↗ and the turn the lane that you're

2:23:14 ↗ entering making that left turn correct

2:23:16 ↗ and then because it transitions directly

2:23:19 ↗ into our widened section that

2:23:23 ↗ own lane and then the through traffic

2:23:25 ↗ stays in its own lane and then they can

2:23:28 ↗ sort themselves out in that nearly 500

2:23:30 ↗ feet between there and the school

2:23:31 ↗ driveway

2:23:33 ↗ okay

2:23:34 ↗ thank you that's that's helpful

2:23:36 ↗ commissioner sanford

2:23:43 ↗ thank you mr chairman

2:23:45 ↗ um question i think this may be for mr

2:23:48 ↗ salmon

2:23:49 ↗ um

2:23:50 ↗ regarding the lighting i see an

2:23:52 ↗ attachment 69

2:23:54 ↗ i think it shows toll heights

2:23:56 ↗ uh

2:23:57 ↗ lights around football field on track of

2:23:59 ↗ 80 to 90 feet high is that correct

2:24:02 ↗ and it also says the lighting system

2:24:04 ↗ utilizes fully shielded led luminaires

2:24:07 ↗ with extended visors to ensure there

2:24:09 ↗ will be no point off the site where the

2:24:12 ↗ light source fixture glare will be

2:24:15 ↗ visible could you talk about that a

2:24:16 ↗ little bit please

2:24:18 ↗ absolutely so the we are using taller

2:24:21 ↗ poles than you would have seen you know

2:24:23 ↗ years ago so it used to be you did

2:24:25 ↗ school lighting

2:24:27 ↗ field lighting with 40 or 50 foot tall

2:24:29 ↗ poles we now do 70 to 80 normally the

2:24:32 ↗ reason is you're shining more down on

2:24:34 ↗ the

2:24:35 ↗ facility and you get less glare into the

2:24:37 ↗ neighbors i've got an exhibit that i'm

2:24:40 ↗ going to share which i'm sure i'll have

2:24:42 ↗ to add to the record um is that okay

2:24:47 ↗ you we will have to add it to the record

2:24:49 ↗ so but yes you can share it i i think

2:24:51 ↗ it's actually part of the record anyway

2:24:53 ↗ but i'll uh

2:24:54 ↗ okay oh

2:24:56 ↗ i think this will

2:24:58 ↗ probably do a pretty good job of

2:24:59 ↗ explaining what i'm trying to say so

2:25:02 ↗ taller poles you and so if we had a

2:25:04 ↗ shorter pull you'd be you're projecting

2:25:06 ↗ across to this area

2:25:08 ↗ and then you'd have light spill off the

2:25:10 ↗ side of this and our our facility is

2:25:13 ↗ really really far from from the

2:25:15 ↗ neighbors where we're actually doing

2:25:16 ↗ this lighting but so the taller the

2:25:18 ↗ poles are the more downward light we

2:25:20 ↗ have

2:25:21 ↗ um

2:25:22 ↗ the outside of the track will actually

2:25:24 ↗ be relatively dark from a

2:25:29 ↗ practical standpoint so but this

2:25:31 ↗ does a pretty good job of explaining

2:25:33 ↗ this is part of the lighting study

2:25:34 ↗ that's included in zipa so i can add

2:25:36 ↗ this as well if it's not part of the

2:25:37 ↗ record

2:25:39 ↗ okay thank you that's helpful and

2:25:43 ↗ it says extended visors to ensure

2:25:45 ↗ there'll be no point off the site where

2:25:47 ↗ the light source will be visible

2:25:50 ↗ is that correct that's correct

2:25:55 ↗ that's very helpful thank you

2:26:00 ↗ are there other questions from

2:26:02 ↗ commission members

2:26:06 ↗ i

2:26:08 ↗ chair brendan i do have one this is mel

2:26:10 ↗ morgan

2:26:11 ↗ go ahead

2:26:13 ↗ um

2:26:14 ↗ a couple questions actually so the

2:26:18 ↗ one of my biggest concerns is the

2:26:20 ↗ retaining wall at the baseball field

2:26:23 ↗ um so i understand it's a 38 foot tall

2:26:27 ↗ retaining wall which

2:26:29 ↗ getting up to a three to four story

2:26:31 ↗ building height

2:26:32 ↗ one question i had about it was

2:26:35 ↗ uh i think in the plans we have it's

2:26:37 ↗ it's page l 1.9 l u

2:26:41 ↗ and it shows the

2:26:43 ↗ the walls that are along 228 the top of

2:26:47 ↗ that wall is at 437

2:26:51 ↗ and then for the baseball field

2:26:53 ↗ retaining well the bottom of that wall

2:26:56 ↗ is at 437

2:26:59 ↗ which makes it sound like

2:27:01 ↗ there's going to be level ground between

2:27:03 ↗ the top of the retaining wall at the

2:27:05 ↗ street

2:27:06 ↗ and the bottom the retaining wall at the

2:27:08 ↗ baseball field but it seemed like that

2:27:11 ↗ area when you look at the topographic

2:27:13 ↗ survey

2:27:14 ↗ is sloped and so i'm wondering how we go

2:27:16 ↗ from

2:27:18 ↗ a steeply sloped area

2:27:21 ↗ to where the top of the wall bottom of

2:27:23 ↗ the wall

2:27:24 ↗ are the same so that would have to be

2:27:26 ↗ flattened out

2:27:31 ↗ i'm just pulling up an exhibit so i can

2:27:32 ↗ make sure i'm talking to the same piece

2:27:34 ↗ you are thank you

2:28:41 ↗ so which which sheet were you looking at

2:28:42 ↗ to have the

2:28:44 ↗ it's uh it's l 1.9 l u

2:28:47 ↗ [Music]

2:28:48 ↗ oh i opened this sorry i opened the

2:28:51 ↗ civil plans

2:28:52 ↗ let me open the landscape plans

2:28:54 ↗ okay

2:28:55 ↗ and that's from the the large set of

2:28:57 ↗ plans that we got a while back

2:28:59 ↗ absolutely

2:29:02 ↗ i've been getting a workout turning

2:29:04 ↗ those pages

2:29:09 ↗ it's a big plant set

2:29:11 ↗ a lot of information

2:29:44 ↗ i'm not

2:29:45 ↗ i'm not seeing all media

2:29:48 ↗ all day i found it

2:29:57 ↗ yeah i think it's the wall diagram path

2:29:59 ↗ on it so let me let me put this back

2:30:02 ↗ over and talk through

2:30:04 ↗ right

2:30:06 ↗ um

2:30:16 ↗ so the the height of

2:30:18 ↗ this you're talking this piece to that

2:30:20 ↗ piece

2:30:22 ↗ yeah if i'm reading that right the top

2:30:23 ↗ of one wall 437 the bottom of the

2:30:25 ↗ baseball wall 437 yeah so this 437

2:30:29 ↗ contour actually wraps around

2:30:32 ↗ and makes it so the road it's a little

2:30:34 ↗ complicated the road's sloping down the

2:30:36 ↗ hill

2:30:38 ↗ and and this so

2:30:40 ↗ so this portion of the wall that's

2:30:41 ↗ directly across from it is up the hill

2:30:43 ↗ from

2:30:44 ↗ that there's a low spot in this wall you

2:30:47 ↗ can see where the contours dip in

2:30:49 ↗ here so this is the tallest part of the

2:30:52 ↗ wall so we do have

2:30:53 ↗ one spot that's 38 feet tall which is

2:30:55 ↗ right there if you trace this 38 contour

2:30:58 ↗ back it it goes over to

2:31:00 ↗ to here

2:31:02 ↗ which is how we got that piece um

2:31:04 ↗ but so the baseball field is a

2:31:06 ↗ relatively flat object right there

2:31:09 ↗ it's got some grade across it but we

2:31:11 ↗ actually match grade pretty close so

2:31:14 ↗ we are at

2:31:16 ↗ like 77 for

2:31:18 ↗ the elevation of the baseball field and

2:31:20 ↗ the existing grade like 477 and the

2:31:23 ↗ existing grades right here are like 475.

2:31:25 ↗ so

2:31:26 ↗ we we match pretty close here the

2:31:28 ↗ problem is when you carry that elevation

2:31:30 ↗ out

2:31:32 ↗ at you know one and a half percent down

2:31:35 ↗ we end up you know this crosses a ton of

2:31:37 ↗ contours and so you end up with a

2:31:38 ↗ retaining wall here there is a point

2:31:39 ↗ where the retaining wall is 38 feet tall

2:31:41 ↗ right there but as you get around to

2:31:43 ↗ this corner and closer to bellwood we're

2:31:45 ↗ actually like 18 feet tall

2:31:48 ↗ here okay and it ties into the hillside

2:31:50 ↗ you can see the wall actually ends

2:31:52 ↗ when we come around this corner

2:31:55 ↗ so it's it's somewhat as a

2:31:58 ↗ issue of having existing slopes across

2:32:01 ↗ that area and then we did go back and

2:32:03 ↗ agree to make this wall

2:32:06 ↗ um you know a green screen wall

2:32:08 ↗ um

2:32:09 ↗ that'll have live plants and things on

2:32:11 ↗ it to break up the

2:32:12 ↗ that portion and then replant a portion

2:32:15 ↗ of the buffer along here to make sure

2:32:17 ↗ that we have

2:32:18 ↗ as much of a

2:32:20 ↗ vegetated buffer as possible okay so i

2:32:23 ↗ heard that in the presentation the green

2:32:24 ↗ screen wall so that is

2:32:26 ↗ um

2:32:28 ↗ in the staff report i think it showed

2:32:31 ↗ the sort of just the cement blocks the

2:32:34 ↗ um shape block so it would be a little

2:32:35 ↗ different that you would have some

2:32:37 ↗ vegetation on it we would um and we're

2:32:39 ↗ looking at a couple of different options

2:32:41 ↗ for that wall but yeah it will be a wall

2:32:44 ↗ with vegetation on it this district

2:32:45 ↗ added that as a separate condition

2:32:48 ↗ and as i mentioned so the staff report

2:32:50 ↗ by reference um okay as well that'll be

2:32:53 ↗ great i think partly just in helping the

2:32:56 ↗ potential for graffiti too

2:32:58 ↗ absolutely

2:33:00 ↗ then this is a maybe a very minor item

2:33:03 ↗ but on on if you can pull up l 2.6 l u

2:33:22 ↗ right there so right at the um

2:33:25 ↗ if you move the cursor up a little bit

2:33:27 ↗ where that v notch is

2:33:29 ↗ just to the right there

2:33:31 ↗ if i understand it right from looking at

2:33:33 ↗ the aerials and so forth

2:33:35 ↗ um that's right about where

2:33:38 ↗ there's a a driveway entrance to a

2:33:42 ↗ building within providence point there

2:33:45 ↗ yeah the driveway is actually right

2:33:47 ↗ right here

2:33:48 ↗ yeah

2:33:49 ↗ and then when i was looking at the trees

2:33:51 ↗ that are going in there the trees that

2:33:53 ↗ for the most part that are right in

2:33:55 ↗ front of that are deciduous

2:33:58 ↗ um

2:34:00 ↗ and

2:34:01 ↗ and you know you're fairly looking

2:34:04 ↗ straight over to the south entrance to

2:34:06 ↗ the building there and the buses coming

2:34:07 ↗ by and so forth

2:34:09 ↗ and wondering is that something that the

2:34:11 ↗ landscaper because that's probably one

2:34:13 ↗ of the places where you've got people

2:34:16 ↗ closest to the buildings

2:34:18 ↗ can those be made to all be

2:34:20 ↗ evergreen trees to give a permanent

2:34:22 ↗ blockage

2:34:25 ↗ between the neighboring property

2:34:28 ↗ and the school as opposed to the

2:34:30 ↗ deciduous trees that are going to be

2:34:33 ↗ you know lose leaves during the fall or

2:34:35 ↗ during the winter

2:34:37 ↗ yeah

2:34:37 ↗ i don't think we wouldn't have any issue

2:34:39 ↗ changing that to more of an evergreen um

2:34:43 ↗ they i think probably wanting to have

2:34:45 ↗ some of both along there to to break

2:34:47 ↗ that up a little bit

2:34:48 ↗ um but yeah if adding some different

2:34:51 ↗ planting types along that edge to to

2:34:53 ↗ make sure we had something in the winter

2:34:55 ↗ is something you'd be totally on board

2:34:57 ↗ okay

2:34:59 ↗ uh thank you

2:35:02 ↗ commissioner dylan you have a question

2:35:05 ↗ yes thank you chair brennan

2:35:07 ↗ um

2:35:08 ↗ your

2:35:09 ↗ your presentation on on the storm water

2:35:12 ↗ management focused a lot on on the peak

2:35:16 ↗ flows and the comparison of the

2:35:19 ↗ the mitigated peak flows to

2:35:22 ↗ to the pre-developed and the historical

2:35:25 ↗ so the flow controls i know there have

2:35:27 ↗ been a lot a lot of public comment and

2:35:29 ↗ concern about about stormwater volumes

2:35:32 ↗ and the flow control standard actually

2:35:34 ↗ does deal with volumes and then it

2:35:37 ↗ requires you to match durations and all

2:35:39 ↗ of those flows

2:35:40 ↗ do you have

2:35:41 ↗ those plots available

2:35:43 ↗ um

2:35:45 ↗ to to show

2:35:46 ↗ or is that something that can be be made

2:35:48 ↗ available for

2:35:50 ↗ um

2:35:51 ↗ it's definitely part of the record i

2:35:53 ↗ can't i can die i can pull up some of

2:35:56 ↗ them you're you're 100 right the the the

2:35:59 ↗ math behind it is significantly more

2:36:01 ↗ complicated than i tried to make it

2:36:02 ↗ sound um

2:36:04 ↗ the uh and we are meeting all the

2:36:06 ↗ duration requirements with the western

2:36:08 ↗ washington hydraulic model um to do that

2:36:11 ↗ so

2:36:12 ↗ i can i can pull those up now or i can

2:36:14 ↗ bring

2:36:15 ↗ put something together and bring that

2:36:17 ↗ back if that's whichever way is simpler

2:36:19 ↗ for you

2:36:20 ↗ guys um knowing what those plots look

2:36:23 ↗ like it it might be better if you bring

2:36:25 ↗ something back that's a little bit bit i

2:36:28 ↗ can screenshot it it would be good to

2:36:30 ↗ demonstrate um how you're how you're

2:36:33 ↗ meeting that condition

2:36:35 ↗ i can do that

2:36:36 ↗ yeah i think i think that i think that's

2:36:38 ↗ a good request and it would just be

2:36:41 ↗ um explaining what that

2:36:44 ↗ what what

2:36:45 ↗ that means when we're talking about the

2:36:48 ↗ flow conditions during various volume

2:36:51 ↗ periods so it's most mostly about the

2:36:52 ↗ concept and how that works and then how

2:36:54 ↗ it's being addressed

2:36:56 ↗ are there other uh commissioner dylan

2:36:58 ↗ did you have additional question

2:37:01 ↗ no that was it

2:37:03 ↗ good thank you

2:37:04 ↗ um

2:37:05 ↗ commissioner akita

2:37:13 ↗ richard

2:37:14 ↗ thank you mr brennan

2:37:16 ↗ commissioner dillon actually touched up

2:37:18 ↗ on my question um i do just a further

2:37:20 ↗ clarification what's what's the design

2:37:22 ↗ storm that the uh stormwater system is

2:37:25 ↗ designed to

2:37:27 ↗ so it's actually a series of storms so

2:37:30 ↗ it takes 50 years of runoff and runs it

2:37:32 ↗ through the model so it's from we're

2:37:34 ↗ matching durations from 50 percent of

2:37:36 ↗ the two-year storm up to the 50-year

2:37:38 ↗ storm on it

2:37:40 ↗ then if you if you hit a 100-year event

2:37:44 ↗ how does it handle that

2:37:46 ↗ so i don't

2:37:48 ↗ at that point we would be exceeding the

2:37:49 ↗ code requirements so we'd be in an

2:37:51 ↗ overflow condition so we've designed

2:37:53 ↗ that overflow condition condition to go

2:37:55 ↗ out to 228

2:37:57 ↗ we're reducing the flows that would have

2:37:59 ↗ gone to providence point or any of the

2:38:01 ↗ neighboring communities we've done

2:38:03 ↗ analysis to show that that water would

2:38:05 ↗ make it

2:38:06 ↗ down the

2:38:08 ↗ system within 228 and

2:38:10 ↗ and out the um the downstream drainage

2:38:14 ↗ path to laughing jacobs so um we

2:38:16 ↗ wouldn't have any impacts to

2:38:19 ↗ neighboring communities or homes or

2:38:21 ↗ anything like that um

2:38:24 ↗ but it would be an overflow condition

2:38:26 ↗ above the hundred years okay

2:38:29 ↗ uh thanks and just a quick question on

2:38:33 ↗ there's multiple retaining walls various

2:38:35 ↗ heights

2:38:37 ↗ just knowing that there's kids involved

2:38:40 ↗ is there a way to keep is there fall

2:38:41 ↗ protection or ways to keep people kids

2:38:44 ↗ from

2:38:46 ↗ uh

2:38:48 ↗ i'm always looking at things that can

2:38:50 ↗ happen so if you if you have a ball

2:38:53 ↗ field with a 38 foot high wall uh

2:38:56 ↗ someone's off the top maybe it's gonna

2:38:58 ↗ climb it or jump off of it

2:39:01 ↗ yeah so we we've been working with the

2:39:03 ↗ district extensively on that i've had

2:39:05 ↗ the same concern from all kinds of

2:39:07 ↗ perspective i have little kids so um i'm

2:39:10 ↗ always amazed on what they climb on that

2:39:11 ↗ i told them not to so

2:39:13 ↗ trying to figure out how to keep them

2:39:15 ↗ away from that we do have fall

2:39:16 ↗ protection on every wall on the site

2:39:19 ↗ as required by code and from a school

2:39:22 ↗ district perspective trying to make sure

2:39:23 ↗ that we're keeping kids as safe as

2:39:25 ↗ possible those tall retaining walls

2:39:28 ↗ we we also added some additional kickers

2:39:31 ↗ of um fences to make sure you can't get

2:39:33 ↗ out around the fence because the fence

2:39:35 ↗ is set back you know six or eight inches

2:39:37 ↗ from the top of that wall

2:39:38 ↗ where you actually build it and so

2:39:40 ↗ building a piece to make sure somebody

2:39:42 ↗ can't get out there and scale the edge

2:39:43 ↗ of it

2:39:45 ↗ has also been added at the district's

2:39:46 ↗ request

2:39:48 ↗ and then uh switching subjects a little

2:39:50 ↗ bit on the civil plan planning profile

2:39:52 ↗ uh looks like the entrance road is at

2:39:55 ↗ 12 grade

2:39:57 ↗ is that the

2:39:59 ↗ um

2:40:00 ↗ i guess the maximum you can

2:40:03 ↗ allowable

2:40:04 ↗ it's the

2:40:08 ↗ let me rephrase that is there any way to

2:40:10 ↗ reduce that slope

2:40:12 ↗ we've

2:40:13 ↗ yeah we we've uh we've tried to reduce

2:40:16 ↗ it numerous times actually um i really

2:40:18 ↗ want we as a team wanted it to be closer

2:40:21 ↗ to 10 12 gets

2:40:22 ↗ um you know right on the

2:40:25 ↗ we're at the maximum the city allows

2:40:26 ↗ from uh from a code requirement where at

2:40:29 ↗ the maximum the fire department really

2:40:31 ↗ likes to see they can do a little bit

2:40:32 ↗ more but they really well is what they

2:40:35 ↗ would like to hold you to

2:40:37 ↗ um

2:40:38 ↗ the problem is the length of the road to

2:40:40 ↗ get up to those baseball fields

2:40:43 ↗ to get to that elevation so if we push

2:40:46 ↗ that down we need ada access from that

2:40:49 ↗ point to the high school

2:40:51 ↗ and when you start

2:40:52 ↗ intertangling those pieces we need to

2:40:54 ↗ try to get up the hill as fast as

2:40:56 ↗ possible to get to

2:40:58 ↗ the elevation the high school wants to

2:40:59 ↗ be at which is around 510 which is

2:41:02 ↗ the same elevation that the previous

2:41:04 ↗ site was on was at so um

2:41:08 ↗ well i would love to reduce that the 12

2:41:11 ↗ percent really is needed to to minimize

2:41:15 ↗ on-site grading and earthwork

2:41:18 ↗ yeah you really do have a tetris problem

2:41:20 ↗ thank you

2:41:21 ↗ thanks

2:41:24 ↗ there were questions from the commission

2:41:26 ↗ to the applicant team

2:41:33 ↗ uh commissioner sanford

2:41:36 ↗ thank you mr chairman i will have a few

2:41:38 ↗ more questions including several on the

2:41:40 ↗ noise study

2:41:41 ↗ but i want to be mindful of the time

2:41:43 ↗ tonight and i know we have some wrap-up

2:41:44 ↗ questions

2:41:45 ↗ and uh details to take care of tonight

2:41:48 ↗ too so

2:41:49 ↗ um i guess my question is will we be

2:41:51 ↗ able to continue questions of the

2:41:53 ↗ applicant in our continuation of this

2:41:55 ↗ meeting tomorrow

2:41:57 ↗ there's a yeah so there's there's we

2:42:00 ↗ could continue the questioning at the

2:42:02 ↗ beginning of the meeting tomorrow with

2:42:04 ↗ well because we are getting close to

2:42:06 ↗ to 10 o'clock

2:42:07 ↗ before we take public comment

2:42:09 ↗ after public comment there would be

2:42:11 ↗ another opportunity to ask the applicant

2:42:14 ↗ questions

2:42:15 ↗ but after that

2:42:17 ↗ we would when we're in deliberations

2:42:19 ↗ we won't be asking questions to the

2:42:21 ↗ applicant only to the staff

2:42:24 ↗ so there is an opportunity um

2:42:27 ↗ to continue we can go for a few more

2:42:28 ↗ minutes here so if you have additional

2:42:30 ↗ questions they can answer tonight um i

2:42:32 ↗ think we should just continue to proceed

2:42:34 ↗ um but if we if we

2:42:37 ↗ close and there are still questions that

2:42:39 ↗ you want to ask tomorrow

2:42:41 ↗ as we begin

2:42:43 ↗ the meeting we can we can do that before

2:42:44 ↗ public comment

2:42:47 ↗ okay um let me get in a couple then

2:42:49 ↗ regarding the noise study

2:42:51 ↗ attachment 46

2:42:53 ↗ i was wondering if the traffic noise

2:42:55 ↗ from 228th avenue southeast was included

2:42:58 ↗ in the decibel

2:43:00 ↗ results in that study

2:43:11 ↗ is there a member of the applicant team

2:43:13 ↗ that

2:43:14 ↗ can

2:43:15 ↗ ask that question

2:43:17 ↗ i'm i'm looking for an answer i

2:43:20 ↗ um

2:43:23 ↗ i know they looked at it i but i'm not

2:43:26 ↗ going to be able to answer your specific

2:43:27 ↗ question if it's in that memo and my

2:43:29 ↗ reasoning

2:43:31 ↗ because i remember giving them the

2:43:32 ↗ traffic data for them to look at i just

2:43:34 ↗ don't know if it was included in what

2:43:36 ↗ got

2:43:37 ↗ finally done

2:43:40 ↗ yeah and i guess my concern there is

2:43:43 ↗ we're obviously reconfiguring that entry

2:43:45 ↗ to the site

2:43:46 ↗ off 228 then

2:43:48 ↗ we're going from it looks like a

2:43:50 ↗ two-lane road to a four-lane boulevard

2:43:52 ↗ and taking out trees and we have

2:43:53 ↗ retaining walls on either side

2:43:56 ↗ or maybe up to i don't know maybe

2:43:57 ↗ they're a dozen feet tall something like

2:43:59 ↗ that

2:44:00 ↗ so i'm wondering

2:44:01 ↗ aren't we

2:44:03 ↗ logically looking at

2:44:05 ↗ an effect in which the sound from 228

2:44:08 ↗ can be funneled directly up the hill

2:44:12 ↗ toward providence point behind the

2:44:13 ↗ structure so i was wondering if

2:44:16 ↗ that had been modeled or if the decibels

2:44:19 ↗ from 228th had been taken into account

2:44:21 ↗ in this study or

2:44:23 ↗ if though if that sound was exempt from

2:44:27 ↗ the study for some reason

2:44:34 ↗ so and that's fine i'll have a few more

2:44:37 ↗ in this general regard so

2:44:39 ↗ it sounds like you're probably going to

2:44:41 ↗ research that for the next question i'm

2:44:43 ↗ trying to bring my sound consultant to

2:44:45 ↗ tomorrow okay great so why don't i do

2:44:48 ↗ further questions until later on because

2:44:50 ↗ they're all going to be around this

2:44:52 ↗ general topic thank you thank you

2:44:58 ↗ uh commissioners have any additional

2:45:01 ↗ questions for the applicant this evening

2:45:08 ↗ i have just related to the retaining

2:45:10 ↗ walls which is another point of you know

2:45:12 ↗ concern from from folks there are a

2:45:14 ↗ number of significantly

2:45:16 ↗ a number of taller walls on the

2:45:20 ↗ on the west side of the property related

2:45:23 ↗ to the uh construction of this the

2:45:26 ↗ elementary school site

2:45:28 ↗ and um can you describe one i don't have

2:45:31 ↗ the the plans in front of me they're

2:45:33 ↗ downstairs on the dining room table

2:45:35 ↗ still so i'll have to go with uh just a

2:45:38 ↗ quick description

2:45:39 ↗ um but there are some

2:45:41 ↗ fairly tall wall conditions

2:45:43 ↗ um on the west portion can you describe

2:45:47 ↗ what's being done to kind of uh mitigate

2:45:50 ↗ the impact or screen those walls

2:45:53 ↗ yeah so so we've we've designed

2:45:56 ↗ the walls so we pulled the walls back we

2:45:58 ↗ previously had them stepped into that

2:46:00 ↗ hillside which was going to wipe out a

2:46:02 ↗ lot of vegetation

2:46:03 ↗ so taking that stepping away and making

2:46:05 ↗ one taller wall that does get to about

2:46:08 ↗ 12 feet at its tallest point um

2:46:11 ↗ along that edge

2:46:13 ↗ is

2:46:14 ↗ made it so we could retain more existing

2:46:16 ↗ vegetation and more of those existing

2:46:18 ↗ trees that area along

2:46:20 ↗ that portion of the site is actually

2:46:22 ↗ fairly dense when you get back through

2:46:24 ↗ some blackberries along the road i've

2:46:26 ↗ been back for numerous times so um

2:46:29 ↗ the uh

2:46:30 ↗ but it'll be existing vegetation through

2:46:32 ↗ the most of it and we're gonna plot some

2:46:34 ↗ saplings

2:46:35 ↗ in to fill in some of those gaps to make

2:46:37 ↗ sure that we get a complete

2:46:40 ↗ buffer situation

2:46:42 ↗ and then

2:46:44 ↗ along at 228

2:46:46 ↗ and i think the staff report or one of

2:46:48 ↗ the documents references that

2:46:51 ↗ you're constructing

2:46:52 ↗ that frontage improvement um to meet the

2:46:55 ↗ city of sammamish road standards i

2:46:58 ↗ believe or at least one segment of it so

2:47:01 ↗ and and so it sounds like you're still

2:47:03 ↗ working with the

2:47:04 ↗ smanish staff to

2:47:08 ↗ kind of review those

2:47:10 ↗ documents but there are looks like

2:47:12 ↗ tiered retaining walls so you've got

2:47:14 ↗ stacked retaining walls

2:47:16 ↗ that get up when you look at them

2:47:18 ↗ together that get up to a fairly

2:47:20 ↗ significant height

2:47:21 ↗ can you talk a little bit about what's

2:47:23 ↗ and in that tiering is there vegetation

2:47:25 ↗ being planted et cetera to try to soften

2:47:28 ↗ that wall condition uh again you've got

2:47:30 ↗ varying heights of retaining walls along

2:47:32 ↗ 228

2:47:33 ↗ yeah so so widening 228th into that

2:47:37 ↗ hillside is

2:47:38 ↗ problematic from a grading standpoint so

2:47:41 ↗ we're pushing into the existing hillside

2:47:43 ↗ we have to make up the grade so either

2:47:44 ↗ you daylight all the way to the top of

2:47:46 ↗ the hill and wipe all the trees out

2:47:48 ↗ which obviously doesn't meet a lot of

2:47:49 ↗ the requirements of this project so

2:47:53 ↗ what we heard from staff

2:47:55 ↗ and when we were talking to the

2:47:56 ↗ community last time i think we

2:47:58 ↗ previously had one tall wall at the back

2:48:00 ↗ of the sidewalk and that didn't seem

2:48:02 ↗ very nice from a pedestrian standpoint

2:48:04 ↗ so we wanted to build a small front wall

2:48:07 ↗ that was pedestrian scale so less than

2:48:09 ↗ four feet tall

2:48:11 ↗ to come up next to the sidewalk and then

2:48:13 ↗ have some vegetation to break up the

2:48:15 ↗ bigger wall that would be set back six

2:48:17 ↗ feet behind that sidewalk so there is a

2:48:19 ↗ bench there with vegetation on it

2:48:21 ↗ um

2:48:22 ↗ trees proposed and then the taller wall

2:48:25 ↗ farther away from the sidewalk so it

2:48:26 ↗ didn't feel like you were you know along

2:48:28 ↗ 228 in this little box that you had to

2:48:31 ↗ stand in and maybe not feel as safe as

2:48:33 ↗ you could

2:48:34 ↗ right yeah i remember the discussion

2:48:37 ↗ about this um i think i had some

2:48:38 ↗ questions during the community

2:48:40 ↗ conference about the tall walls in one

2:48:41 ↗ 228th and the pedestrian experience so

2:48:44 ↗ that sounds like a much better solution

2:48:46 ↗ i understand the grading issue that that

2:48:48 ↗ creates because it is a fairly steep

2:48:50 ↗ slope right there

2:48:53 ↗ are there

2:48:54 ↗ any other questions for this evening

2:48:57 ↗ commissioner

2:48:58 ↗ sanford is going to have a few questions

2:49:00 ↗ remaining for

2:49:02 ↗ the beginning of the meeting tomorrow

2:49:03 ↗ evening

2:49:05 ↗ it doesn't

2:49:06 ↗ prevent anybody else from asking

2:49:07 ↗ additional questions

2:49:10 ↗ as we open the meeting tomorrow but um

2:49:12 ↗ certainly if you have questions we've

2:49:13 ↗ got a few more minutes

2:49:15 ↗ we could handle those tonight

2:49:20 ↗ and if not we

2:49:22 ↗ um since we still have some questions

2:49:25 ↗ remaining from the commission

2:49:28 ↗ and we're at 10 o'clock which is

2:49:30 ↗ generally the

2:49:31 ↗ time where we try to

2:49:33 ↗ adjourn the commission meetings

2:49:35 ↗ i think

2:49:36 ↗ unless there are

2:49:39 ↗ there's opposition i think that we would

2:49:42 ↗ um

2:49:43 ↗ deal with some of the the

2:49:45 ↗ business the remaining business items i

2:49:47 ↗ think that we have on the agenda some

2:49:48 ↗ report outs from staff and then

2:49:51 ↗ um we would adjourn for this evening we

2:49:53 ↗ would continue the public hearing uh

2:49:56 ↗ into tomorrow evening's beating which

2:49:58 ↗ starts at 7

2:50:00 ↗ 7 p.m and and tomorrow's meeting would

2:50:03 ↗ primarily be to hear the public

2:50:05 ↗ comments from the public

2:50:07 ↗ um so we would get on get on a rhythm i

2:50:09 ↗ think in and hearing that public comment

2:50:11 ↗ uh tomorrow evening so lucy um i believe

2:50:15 ↗ um

2:50:16 ↗ um it goes to you do we have any

2:50:19 ↗ um reports from staff

2:50:23 ↗ to share

2:50:26 ↗ um the one thing i'll bring up to limit

2:50:30 ↗ this um this evening is i was

2:50:34 ↗ contacted today uh to remind

2:50:37 ↗ the um there are four commissioners who

2:50:40 ↗ whose terms are up this year

2:50:43 ↗ um and application um

2:50:46 ↗ is

2:50:47 ↗ the period ended but they are uh

2:50:50 ↗ extending it

2:50:52 ↗ through sunday so i'm encouraging um

2:50:56 ↗ chair brennan

2:50:58 ↗ commissioner sanford commissioner soa

2:51:01 ↗ and commissioner akeda to submit

2:51:04 ↗ applications

2:51:06 ↗ if you're interested in doing so or

2:51:09 ↗ anyone else who is listening on this is

2:51:11 ↗ welcome to submit an application for any

2:51:13 ↗ of the city's

2:51:15 ↗ commissions and boards it the

2:51:20 ↗ address is issaquah wa

2:51:23 ↗ dot gov slash apply

2:51:27 ↗ again issaquah wa.gov

2:51:32 ↗ apply

2:51:33 ↗ um to apply for any of the boards and

2:51:37 ↗ commissions including

2:51:38 ↗ renewing your terms on the development

2:51:41 ↗ commission

2:51:44 ↗ great lucy thanks for the reminder on

2:51:46 ↗ that

2:51:47 ↗ uh is there any other uh city business

2:51:50 ↗ or council updates

2:51:52 ↗ to share the commission this evening

2:51:55 ↗ um i don't know if um

2:51:58 ↗ director dollywall has any uh

2:52:01 ↗ updates that she would like to make this

2:52:03 ↗ evening

2:52:05 ↗ uh good evening um commissioners no due

2:52:07 ↗ to the lateness of the hour i don't have

2:52:09 ↗ anything major to report

2:52:12 ↗ great thank you

2:52:14 ↗ so um again um

2:52:17 ↗ we will conclude for this evening there

2:52:20 ↗ will be some additional questions of the

2:52:22 ↗ applicant from the commission

2:52:24 ↗ an opportunity to ask the african

2:52:26 ↗ questions tomorrow evening

2:52:28 ↗ uh and then we will dedicate um

2:52:31 ↗ i'm guessing we've got a number of

2:52:32 ↗ people that would like from the public

2:52:33 ↗ that would like to speak

2:52:35 ↗ uh to the commission so we certainly

2:52:37 ↗ make an opportunity to do that we'll

2:52:38 ↗ talk about how we do that tomorrow

2:52:40 ↗ evening

2:52:41 ↗ so we will continue the public hearing

2:52:44 ↗ until 7 00 pm tomorrow

2:52:46 ↗ uh and with that we will adjourn this

2:52:49 ↗ meeting this evening so thank you

2:52:50 ↗ everybody uh and and for the public that

2:52:53 ↗ are out there listening i mean thank you

2:52:56 ↗ for your patience and hope to see and

2:52:58 ↗ hear from you tomorrow evening have a

2:53:00 ↗ good evening everyone we're a germ

2:53:03 ↗ thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Brennan

Commissioners Dillon

Ikeda (Alternate)

Morgan (Alternate)

Sanford

Shore

Sowa Absence: Vice Chair Price (Excused)

Staff (3)

Cristina Haworth, Planning Consultant Lucy Sloman, Current Planning Manager Chair Brennan stated that Commissioners Ikeda

Morgan would serve as regular Commission members at the meeting due to the resignation of one Commissioner

the recusal of another. 2. Approval of Minutes